CWS game 2 starting pitcher windup?

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The rules say you have to be in one of two positions, and then the rules say what you can and cannot do when pitching from those positions.

NOTHING says you cannot use one set of motions from the set position with runners on, and another set of motions with no one on. What you're seeing in this video is a (somewhat unorthodox, but legal) set position.

Interesting rationalization. Works for me. Can I use it in FED?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Interesting rationalization. Works for me. Can I use it in FED?

You could use that rationalization in FED, but this stance would be illegal in FED, as it's not a set by their rules.

[bob jenkins]

Can't tell from the video (the 30 seconds or so that I watched) whether the entire free foot is entirely in front of the pivot foot.

Note that college essentially gives the pitcher about 12" farther forward in which to place the free foot, compared with NFHS.

And, I would agree, it's often ignored, especially with no runners. Now if there are runners, (specifically R3) and the runners might be affectged as not being able to tell whether the pitcher is in the wind-up or set, that might be a different issue.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Can't tell from the video (the 30 seconds or so that I watched) whether the entire free foot is entirely in front of the pivot foot.

Note that college essentially gives the pitcher about 12" farther forward in which to place the free foot, compared with NFHS.

And, I would agree, it's often ignored, especially with no runners. Now if there are runners, (specifically R3) and the runners might be affectged as not being able to tell whether the pitcher is in the wind-up or set, that might be a different issue.

CWS side view showed daylight between the two feet. This pitcher as with Cliff Lee you can tell which stance he is in, the windup or set, or as MDlonghorn says, the set or the other set.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You could use that rationalization in FED, but this stance would be illegal in FED, as it's not a set by their rules.

What FED set rule does this violate?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by umpjim

What FED set rule does this violate?

Free foot must be on or behind a line through the front of the rubber (to be in the wind up).

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Free foot must be on or behind a line through the front of the rubber (to be in the wind up).

But I'm calling it a set as per MDlonghorn and Rich Ives.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by umpjim

But I'm calling it a set as per MDlonghorn and Rich Ives.

Now you're confusing FED and NCAA rules.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Now you're confusing FED and NCAA rules.

FED windup requires free foot to be on Pitchers Plate front line extension. OP pitcher does not comply with this.

NCAA windup requires entire free foot to not be in front of pivot foot. OP pitcher does not comply with this. We won't worry about squared shoulders.

Rationalization is that this pitcher is in the set. What FED set rule is different than NCAA?