|
|||
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
The free foot does not have to be directly in front of the rubber. It can be anywhere as long as no part of the foot is on or behind a line extending through the front edge of the rubber.
|
|
|||
Quote:
(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.) |
|
|||
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.
Quote:
His pivot foot ? cite please. His free foot ? cite please |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by bluehair; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 11:25am. |
|
|||
Quote:
And how do you have a legal set and then go into a windup? This is definitional. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
Quote:
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. 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. Last edited by bluehair; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:35pm. |
|
|||
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.
Last edited by bluehair; Wed Feb 20, 2013 at 01:15pm. |
Bookmarks |
|
|
LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/94079-hybrid-pitching-stance.html
|
||||
Posted By | For | Type | Date | |
Point of emphasis - Forums | This thread | Refback | Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:29pm | |
Point of emphasis - Forums | This thread | Refback | Wed Mar 06, 2013 08:46pm | |
Point of emphasis - Forums | This thread | Refback | Wed Mar 06, 2013 06:27pm | |
Point of emphasis - Forums | This thread | Refback | Wed Mar 06, 2013 05:39pm | |
Point of emphasis - Forums | This thread | Refback | Wed Mar 06, 2013 05:12pm |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Davis stance/K3C | DonInKansas | Baseball | 24 | Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:57pm |
Stance | mike1989 | Baseball | 20 | Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:08pm |
GD Stance | LLPA13UmpDan | Baseball | 42 | Tue Oct 31, 2006 10:15pm |
Gorilla Stance | blueump | Baseball | 49 | Thu Apr 14, 2005 07:56am |
Tim McClelland- New Stance | LeftyRef | Baseball | 14 | Tue Apr 12, 2005 08:55am |