Hybrid Pitching Stance
 

Well, I had my first games of the season Friday night. (DH). A little chilly for Southern standards but, it was good to be back on the field.

At the plate meeting we discussed the POE's and sure enough in the 3rd inning, with a runner on third, the pitcher stands in the hybrid position and pitches as if it is a windup. After I call the balk and again, explain to the coach, he admits that he hadn't really paid any attention to the POE's.

Oh well, good to back on the field, got 4 games scheduled this week.

PS: I did get a pitcher ask about the 3-1 move being disallowed. I told him that it is still allowed by NFHS rules but, next year when he gets to the Pro's it will probably not be allowed.

I've balked this in years past, but never balled it with no runners on (nobody gave a flip, including me). Now they POE it and want us enforce it all the time. Maybe a lesson learned with a ball called cost less than a balk in a run called.

And a ball called (versus a balk called) probably reduces the likehood of a coach accusing us of OOO'ing it...ah, that's just crazy talk.

Seeing as how it is the coaches who have the largest voice in FED rules, I say if it's in the POE, then balk the crap out of them!

Their rules - their problem, not mine!

+4000

I truly see this as a reincarnation (on the high school level) of 1988's year of the balk.

They are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Here is a not-so-bold prediction: I will eject someone over this POE this year.

This is straight forward stuff. Your either in the windup or set position depending upon the position of your feet. When in either position there are guidleines to follow, (aka Rules).

This is exactly how I explained the Balk call to the coach. Two distinct positions.

The only reason you may be ejecting someone is because they are ignorant, (which means they sholud be ejected more often) or you have to cleanup after other umpires that want to get paid but, not do their job.

Actually, if you take a closer look at this, in reality it is making your job easier. Your either in a Set or Windup position or your not.

But there is a difference with the HS rule set. In Fed, in the wind-up position, you can not step and throw to a base to try to pickoff a runner without disengaging first (not so in OBR). For example a LHP in the windup position can not step and throw to 3B without disengaging first. If F1 is in this hybrid stance (which is a legal set stance) can he or can he not step and throw to a base. How can you balk F1 in my example for throwing to 3B, if he is in a legal set position?

If he is in a legal set position and he starts to go into a wind-up, that is a balk. You can't have both the advantage of a set position and go into a wind-up.

Now balling this with no runners on? That's looking for trouble.

law, it doesn't have to come to that. I enforced the rule last season without any ejections.

Treat it as game management: when the starting F1 or any sub is warming up, he's usually in the windup (some relievers use only the set, and for them it won't matter). If they're in a "hybrid" stance, I speak to the head coach about it.

Early in the season, I treat it as something the state wants us to enforce; later in the season, I tell them it's going to be enforced in the tournament. Either way, they'll want to address it now.

I did this 4 or 5 times last season. Three times, the pitching coach came over, heard what I was saying, and hollered to his F1 to "get on the rubber!" I'd guess that he had instructed his F1 to do it correctly, but the kid ignored him.

So for those teams, at least, the coaches and I were on the same page.

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.

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.

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.

http://forum.officiating.com/basebal...tml#post868314

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.

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!!

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

Precisely. Thank you.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

So here is the hybrid stance:

http://www.rivercityumps.com/Pics/illegal.jpg

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.

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.

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

Which is exactly what you can't do.

lowest common denominator of umpire intelligence
 

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.

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.

http://www.rivercityumps.com/Pics/illegal.jpg
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.

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

Last time I ever agree with you...

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.

I stand by my prior stated (in this thread) views on this POE...but I will call it. As Chief Justice Roberts famously implied: we umpires enforce the rules, we don't make them!

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.

Nor do their coaches.

And that is the biggest reason right there. How can either one learn if no one teaches them.

Guys we can piss and moan about how stupid this rule is and I've heard of one local booking agent saying he wasn't making his umpires call it. Guys we have no choice. We HAVE to call it! By not calling it the rule will not have a chance of being reversed. Remember it's the coaches that get rules changed. If we want this changed we need to call the hell out of this and maybe some coaches will get pissed enough to get it changed!

That's true. Additionally, by not calling we're putting our colleagues down the road who inevitably will call it in a terrible position. They're gonna run into *someone* who calls it. And if that's in the state tourney when umps from another area that was calling it all season are doing the game, then shame on the home area umps for setting that team up - even if that's what they wanted at the time.

Frankly, in the pantheon of silly Fed rules, I don't have all that much of a problem with this. Yea, they dumb things down a lot, but for a large majority of high school kids (and umps and coaches) I think it's appropriate that there is a defined line between the two positions. Pick one and pick it clearly. As long as the allowable actions are different and offenses are basing their strategy on that, the defense should clearly pick. The better kids that can handle it will be able to adjust and will find themselves to OBR leagues soon enough.

To add to this, and I'm not dumping on anyone, Most of the "chirping" I've heard is coming from college umpires. And I understand their frustration. But you have to remember the skill level is probably closer then at the HS level. Remember that FED wants to take as much judgement out of our hands as possible.

Too true. If Fed didn't have the "can not throw to a base without a disengaging from the wind-up position" code difference, this hybrid stance wouldn't even be an issue. Since there is the potential for a problem with runners on (and they can't trust us umpires to distinguish between potential advantage and none) lets just tell everybody to ball it with no runners on.

And then to make it even more simple (more odorous, IMO), they take what is, by literal wording, a legal set position, and make it illegal, with the wave of hand...
...thanks big bruda.

Remember, this is the same organization that took away the automatic first down on defensive pass interference to balance the advantage/disadvantage between offense and defense. Sometimes you just have to shake your head.

Completely different people, and this is not NEARLY as dumb as that.