Hybrid Pitching Stance

[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.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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.

You do what you want, but what you're not doing is enforcing the rules if you let this go as pictured.

One advantage to using this as the set for a RHP is it makes it easier to turn before the stretch to look at the runner and makes it that much less of a turn/jump stop - esp if a runner thinks it's a windup.

[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]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

Fed needed to make the non-pivot foot specification because you can't throw to a base without disengaging in the wind-up. In OBR, you can throw to a base without disengaging so there was no need to require the non-pivot foot at/behind the rubber in wind-up.

Of my knowledge neither OBR nor Fed had an problem with a throw from wind-up situation. Fed had the potential of a problem with this stupid hybrid stance and killed that potential by POE'ing the rule and making us ball it with no runners on (overkill IMO-just like balling an aborted wind-up). But that is how Fed works, they seem to dumb down the rules to the lowest common denominator of umpire intelligence.

[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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by 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.

I used to agree with you. Then my state (following FED) told me I was wrong. :shrug:

Like dash, I have no objection to doing it their way.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by 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.

Sounds like FED wants one stance, one way, every time.........even with no runners on base. Classic wind position, classic set position every time. With runners on base, this stance has always been a balk in FED from either the wind or set position. I don't see the big deal with enforcing it in the first place. The only thing I would do different is cut the kids at the lover skill levels some slack. They don't have any idea what is right or wrong to begin with.