Hybrid Pitching Stance

[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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

No, I'm not "hung up" on anything. That's the clear and essential part of the rule. I think you're WAY overthinking it. Just look at the pics in the NFHS preseason guide. "Entire" isn't hard or OOO - it's the rule.

And how do you have a legal set and then go into a windup? This is definitional.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by scrounge

No, I'm not "hung up" on anything. That's the clear and essential part of the rule. I think you're WAY overthinking it. Just look at the pics in the NFHS preseason guide. "Entire" isn't hard or OOO - it's the rule.

And how do you have a legal set and then go into a windup? This is definitional.

1. Then you agree that F1 can have his entire pivot foot in contact with the rubber (initial set position) in a variation of this hybrid stance, thanks.
2. If you want to use the word "entire" literally, it can never be achieved, unless the pitching plate is made of jello. But now I nit pick, lets get back to your nit pick.
3. If F1 intends to be in the set position (pivot foot on top of the rubber). Are you going to balk him because his big toe was on the dirt in front of the rubber? Or the back of his foot wasn't in contact? If yes, I think that's OOO. Just like this hybrid initial position. I'll no longer argue about this nit-picking.

Lost in all this nit picking over the partially literal definition of the word "entire", is my opinion why the Fed made this a POE. In Fed (unlike OBR) F1 can not throw to a base from the initial wind-up position without disengaging first, but can from the initial set position. If F1 muddies up the initial position by having his pivot foot entirely in contact and free foot entirely in front of the rubber (a legal initial set position), how can you balk him for throwing to 3B without disengaging? If an umpire continues to allow F1 to wind-up from this hybrid, he is opening up the possiblility (though I've never seen/heard of it done) that F1 breaks off a throw to 3B without disengaging and having the DHC say this isn't a balk because F1 was in a legal set position.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

1. Then you agree that F1 can have his entire pivot foot in contact with the rubber (initial set position) in a variation of this hybrid stance, thanks.
2. If you want to use the word "entire" literally, it can never be achieved, unless the pitching plate is made of jello. But now I nit pick, lets get back to your nit pick.
3. If F1 intends to be in the set position (pivot foot on top of the rubber). Are you going to balk him because his big toe was on the dirt in front of the rubber? Or the back of his foot wasn't in contact? If yes, I think that's OOO. Just like this hybrid initial position. I'll no longer argue about this nit-picking.

Lost in all this nit picking over the partially literal definition of the word "entire", is my opinion why the Fed made this a POE. In Fed (unlike OBR) F1 can not throw to a base from the initial wind-up position without disengaging first, but can from the initial set position. If F1 muddies up the initial position by having his pivot foot entirely in contact and free foot entirely in front of the rubber (a legal initial set position), how can you balk him for throwing to 3B without disengaging? If an umpire continues to allow F1 to wind-up from this hybrid, he is opening up the possiblility (though I've never seen/heard of it done) that F1 breaks off a throw to 3B without disengaging and having the DHC say this isn't a balk because F1 was in a legal set position.

If the entire pivot is in contact as you state in 1] then it was never a hybrid to begin with. The rest of that is absurd to the point of requiring no further reply. My congratulations on your internet message board debate win - I hear it's a wonderful trophy.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by scrounge

My congratulations on your internet message board debate win - I hear it's a wonderful trophy.

A trophy? I won a trophy, awesome! I've got a place for it in my virtual trophy case between the Mario Brothers and Packman trophies.

[maven]

So here is the hybrid stance:



As has already been pointed out, FED wants to eliminate this stance on the grounds that it meets the definition of neither legal stance.

It is not a windup, since the free foot is not on or behind a line through the front of the rubber.

It is not a set, since the pivot is not completely in contact with the rubber (the toes hanging off the front are illegal). Yes, the rule is written poorly, but no more poorly than OBR or NCAA.

IMHO, a pitcher gets more advantage from being allowed to windup from this stance than if he sets. THAT (the hybrid windup) I will ball/balk every time.

I don't see that he gets much advantage from using this stance as his set. Provided he complies with the rest of the rules concerning pitching from the set, having toes hanging off is no big deal.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by maven

I don't see that he gets much advantage from using this stance as his set. Provided he complies with the rest of the rules concerning pitching from the set, having toes hanging off is no big deal.

And some hybrid variations have the pivot foot more sideways (more in contact) and other variations have pivot more pointing towards HP (less in contact).

If F1 used this stance as his normal set position (and it had no resemblance to his wind-up position), one could balk him for not having his entire pivot foot in contact, I wouldn't.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by maven

Yes, the rule is written poorly, but no more poorly than OBR or NCAA.

This is one of the few areas where I think the NFHS rule is better than in OBR.

[bluehair]

Fed 6-3...and with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

State intrepretation liberties aside, is this entire pivot foot in contact with or in front of the rubber? Absolutely. Part in contact with, part directly in front of the rubber.

The rule does not say...and with his entire foot in contact with or with his entire foot directly in front of the pitcher's plate.

See the difference? Probably not.

AND IT IS THE NON-PIVOT FOOT THAT IS THE ISSUE IN THE HYBRID STANCE.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

Our state interpreter specifically said pitching from the set with the pivot foot perpendicular to the rubber is illegal. It must be parallel. I do not agree it is OOO to enforce this, especially if the pitcher's feet leave any doubt as to which position he is in because, unlike other codes, the pitcher cannot throw or feint to a base from the windup. The runner has an absolute right to know if the pitcher is in the windup or set, and it could have a big effect on a runner's lead (particularly R3).

I don't care if F1's pivot foot is partially off the side of the rubber (also illegal from the set), because most of the mounds have a crater in front of the rubber and F1 is just trying to pitch without breaking his ankle. That would be OOO, in my opinion. If a coach wants me to enforce this (it hasn't happened yet), I will probably require that the mound be fixed first.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Our state interpreter specifically said pitching from the set with the pivot foot perpendicular to the rubber is illegal. It must be parallel.

Said I hasn't going to argue this anymore, but have you not seen a variation of this hybrid stance where F1's pivot foot is not point towards HP, and is 90+% is in contact with the rubber? I have...many times that is what I see.
And your state interpreter is probably making this interp in the context of this hybrid stance issue and takes away Lou "the toe" Groza's advantage, who could have his pivot foot pointing towards HP and be entirely in contact.

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

unlike other codes, the pitcher cannot throw or feint to a base from the windup. The runner has an absolute right to know if the pitcher is in the windup or set, and it could have a big effect on a runner's lead (particularly R3).

Exactly...that's why I think Fed made this a POE...to prevent F1 from taking advantage of a set position look-a-like. The issue isn't the pivot location (nit picking), its the free foot location.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I see a legal set position, followed by a wind-up.

Which is exactly what you can't do.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by bluehair

I see a legal set position, followed by a wind-up.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Which is exactly what you can't do.

What can't I do? Do I have to balk it for a non-legal initial position (your way)? Or is OK to balk it for going from a legal set to a wind-up (my way)...
...either way we've got a balk.

In your way, you would balk F1 in the foot print above when he was staying in the set position/delivery. Easy to say in cyperspace, probably tougher to do on the ballfield. Good luck with that.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by bluehair

What can't I do? Do I have to balk it for a non-legal initial position (your way)? Or is OK to balk it for going from a legal set to a wind-up (my way)...
...either way we've got a balk.

In your way, you would balk F1 in the foot print above when he was staying in the set position/delivery. Easy to say in cyperspace, probably tougher to do on the ballfield. Good luck with that.

Wow. Read much? BTW - I don't have a "way".

Last time I ever agree with you...