Hybrid Pitching Stance

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

If F1 is in this hybrid stance (which is a legal set stance) ...

The "hybrid" stance I am familiar with has F1 with his pivot foot across (perpendicular to) the rubber and his free foot in front of, and often past the side edge of, the rubber. This is not legal. The pivot foot is legal only from the windup, and the free foot is legal only from the set.

[jicecone]

Exactly Dash, your either in the Set position or the Windup. Half Set and half Windup is illegal. Call the Ball or Balk and eventually they will get the message.

If anything it is clearly defined what is expected, just enforce it.

[lawump]

You guys will not convince me otherwise: they are making a mountain out of a molehill with this POE. They are causing a problem that just is not there...just like MLB in 1988.

I have attended our state pre-season clinic given by the state assistant commissioner for baseball (a non-baseball person...a nice guy, but a non-baseball person). They have given us our marching orders: balk it (or ball it), or else.

This has never, ever been an issue in over a decade of doing FED ball. I have never heard of the term "hybrid stance" until FED came up with it this year. I've never had a pitcher take to the mound where I have not been able to tell which stance he was using. I've never once even come close to have an argument with an offensive coach who argued that a pitcher was using the opposite stance than the one I adjudged the pitcher to be using. Not once. I have not even had an argument where a coach argued that a pitcher was using an illegal stance and gaining an advantage (such as confusing the runners).

But with this POE AND the accompanying diagrams of pitchers' feet location (in both the NFHS pre-season guide and the NFHS overhead slides that were shown to all the umpires and coaches at our state pre-season clinic) they have made clear that what has been allowed (if not by rule, by fact) without incident for GOD knows how long in pro ball, NCAA and, even, FED will now be a balk or ball in FED.

As depicted in a picture from another thread, I have never once had any manager, coach or player on any level ever argue that a pitcher using the stance shown in this picture is pitching from anything other than the wind-up.

NFHS Rules: Pitcher's Stances.

Like in 1988, sometimes it is best just to let sleeping dogs lie. As President of our association I have already fielded calls from persons complaining about our umpires calling balls and balks in enforcing this rule...and these have only occurred in scrimmages. Our season doesn't start until this Saturday.

P.S. I'm not a fan of the "warn them early in the season and then call it when it gets to tournament (or playoff) time." I strive for consistency from myself and my association's umpires for the entire season. Unless they actually change the rules during the season...what is called and enforced in late February will be called and enforced the same exact way by our umpires at the State Championships in May.

[jicecone]

I remember when "a change in direction" was acceptable in NFHS Pitching also.

Things change, that's called life.

But it is NFHS's "mountain and molehill". When I get my own, I will do my way!!

[dash_riprock]

I don't care if it's a mountain or a molehill. If FED wants me to call it (and obviously they do), I will. It will be far worse if some umps call it and some don't.

[umpjim]

It is a mountain out of a molehill. The POE says they are using the hybrid to deceive the runner. They are using the hybrid to emulate MLB pitchers. This rule, which has been in the book for as long is I have known, has not been enforced until last year (not strongly) and now this year (strongly as per FED) in my area. No body has ever been deceived and I bet they would even know if Cliff Lee was in the windup or not if he was pitching HS.
Now let's go after the TOP in the windup in FED. Both arms moving to a stop is a ball or balk. Time to make that a POE.

I agree with lawump:
This has never, ever been an issue in over a decade of doing FED ball. I have never heard of the term "hybrid stance" until FED came up with it this year. I've never had a pitcher take to the mound where I have not been able to tell which stance he was using. I've never once even come close to have an argument with an offensive coach who argued that a pitcher was using the opposite stance than the one I adjudged the pitcher to be using. Not once. I have not even had an argument where a coach argued that a pitcher was using an illegal stance and gaining an advantage (such as confusing the runners).

[bluehair]

And though I identified a possibility of a problem with a legal set position/wind-up hybrid variation being a problem (yes, often the free foot is in front of and not to the side of the rubber), I think they made a mountain out of a molehill also (especially with no runners on).

And it kind of hacks me off that they made it a POE. Because after the time I did balk home a R3, I brought the play up at our next chapter meeting. There, the same people who informed me that this was an illegel stance two weeks before I made the balk call (with the foot prints you now see in the POE) were now telling me I was OOO'ing it with that balk. Saying if he always does his wind-up that way, why pick up that end of the stick. Now its a POE and they have no recollection of me bringing this up 3 years ago...NICE.

[AllanA]

Just curious, when do you guys call it? Immediately or wait for first movement?
Our board says to wait for first movement to give the pitcher a chance to disengage (correct his mistake). I think it needs to be called when he intentionally engages the rubber. As per rule 6.1. But I will call it as they have requested.

Allan

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by AllanA

Just curious, when do you guys call it? Immediately or wait for first movement?
Our board says to wait for first movement to give the pitcher a chance to disengage (correct his mistake). I think it needs to be called when he intentionally engages the rubber. As per rule 6.1. But I will call it as they have requested.

He may be in a legal set position (free foot directly in front of the rubber). If so, he has done nothing wrong yet. When he breaks the set position rules (no discernable stop), he has made an illegal pitch.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by AllanA

Just curious, when do you guys call it? Immediately or wait for first movement?
Our board says to wait for first movement to give the pitcher a chance to disengage (correct his mistake). I think it needs to be called when he intentionally engages the rubber. As per rule 6.1. But I will call it as they have requested.

Allan

I say you're correct, it's on the intentional engagement when this and all other pitching rules apply. Seems like waiting is just setting the trap for a sh*tstorm.

Our association recommending using preventative officiating here, especially early in the season when folks aren't used to it yet. Stop him early, even in warmups if you can (especially at the sub-varsity level - they shouldn't need a warning at varsity).

Also, seems like the spirit of the rule is to make it clear for the runners/offense which position the pitcher is in. If you wait for first movement, the runner may not be able to get a leadoff that he could if the pitcher would choose one of the two legal positions.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by lawump

they have made clear that what has been allowed (if not by rule, by fact) without incident for GOD knows how long in pro ball, NCAA and, even, FED will now be a balk or ball in FED.

It was a rule change / POE in NCAA a few years ago (5 maybe?) Took pitchers < 1 month to adjust.

(Note that in NCAA, the free foot must be entirely in front of the pivot foot to be in the set; in FED it's a set if the foot is in front of the rubber.)

[bluehair]

OK, my mistake. I thought you had a problem with the free foot. But I was talking about a hybrid possible being a legal set position.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The "hybrid" stance I am familiar with has F1 with his pivot foot across (perpendicular to) the rubber and his free foot in front of, and often past the side edge of, the rubber. This is not legal.

What in your hybrid variation makes it not a legal set position?
His pivot foot ? cite please.
His free foot ? cite please

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

OK, my mistake. I thought you had a problem with the free foot. But I was talking about a hybrid possible being a legal set position.


What in your hybrid variation makes it not a legal set position?
His pivot foot ? cite please.
His free foot ? cite please

The hybrid stance mentioned violates the requirements because one foot might meet the requirements but the other won't.

It's not a set because the pivot foot is not "with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate." (6-1-3). It's not a windup because the "pitcher's non-pivot foot shall be in any position on or behind a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher's plate." (6-1-2).

If the non-pivot is in front, then the pivot has to be entirely in contact, not just astride or touching.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by scrounge

The hybrid stance mentioned violates the requirements because one foot might meet the requirements but the other won't.

It's not a set because the pivot foot is not "with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate." (6-1-3). It's not a windup because the "pitcher's non-pivot foot shall be in any position on or behind a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher's plate." (6-1-2).

If the non-pivot is in front, then the pivot has to be entirely in contact, not just astride or touching.

Precisely. Thank you.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by scrounge

then the pivot has to be entirely in contact, not just astride or touching.

Are you hung up on the word "entire pivot foot in contact"? Where I've seen this done, F1 has his pivot foot at angles between almost pointing towards the plate (a little of his foot overlapping in front of and behind the rubber) and 90 degrees to HP (entire bottom of pivot in contact). If you'd call the former an illegal set position, you are free to OOO that as you like, but in the the latter case (near 90 degrees to HP) F1's foot is entirely in contact and in a legal set position.

In every case I've seen, I don't see an iilegal set (think it would be OOO to do so), I see a legal set position, followed by a wind-up.