NFHS pitcher's foot

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

The rule says the pivot foot must be ON or partially ON the top surface of the pitching plate. Either the toe, heel or entire foot MUST be ON or partially ON the pitching plate.

Technically, if the pivot foot toe is butted against the back of the plate or the heel is butted against the front, that is by rule illegal.

Call or no-call?

The green font is from the rule. The red font appears to be your interpolation.

You've stated a foot butted up against the back or front of the pitcher's plate is illegal.

And you're asking us if we'd ignore that and not call an illegal pitch.

Is that accurate?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

The green font is from the rule. The red font appears to be your interpolation.

You've stated a foot butted up against the back or front of the pitcher's plate is illegal.

And you're asking us if we'd ignore that and not call an illegal pitch.

Is that accurate?

Yes.

[Manny A]

"Coach, what other pitching rules would you like me to ignore because you feel they don't offer the pitcher any advantage? Shall I blow off when she steps on the plate with her hands together? What about if she separates them and decides to bring them back together? Oh, and surely when she steps back with her non-pivot foot and it lands outside the 24" lane, there can't possibly be any advantage gained there, right?"

Seriously, it's a pitching rule. God knows too many of us fail to enforce a lot of those violations already.

Now, if you can't tell that the pitcher has a small portion of her pivot foot overlapping the plate because it's slightly covered with dirt, or perhaps the plate is chewed up in front and no longer a straight 24" edge, I can see giving her the benefit of the doubt. But if it is crystal clear that she has no part of that foot on top of the plate, why give her a free pass?

[youngump]

This is a question that only makes sense in message board land. If her foot is touching the plate then it is not clear from my distance that no part of her foot is above the plate. I make this call when I can see space.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

This is a question that only makes sense in message board land. If her foot is touching the plate then it is not clear from my distance that no part of her foot is above the plate. I make this call when I can see space.

I'm able to see it quite clearly on some fields. Watch the pitcher warming up before the inning starts, and you'll see it. If it looks the same when she's actually pitching, call it. I've done it a few times, and I've never had a pitcher or coach complain that she was "on the plate" and I just couldn't tell.

Yes, the benefit of the doubt can be given to the pitcher when conditions aren't ideal so that you can see it. But if you can definitively tell, then letting it go because you don't "see space" between the foot and the plate is selective enforcement.

[CecilOne]

OK, so we all agree, if you can see it for sure, call it.

Like any call, especially controversial, be sure, no OOO.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

I'm able to see it quite clearly on some fields. Watch the pitcher warming up before the inning starts, and you'll see it. If it looks the same when she's actually pitching, call it. I've done it a few times, and I've never had a pitcher or coach complain that she was "on the plate" and I just couldn't tell.

Yes, the benefit of the doubt can be given to the pitcher when conditions aren't ideal so that you can see it. But if you can definitively tell, then letting it go because you don't "see space" between the foot and the plate is selective enforcement.

How good would a field have to be for you tell the difference between the foot being a 64th of inch over the pitching plate and being behind it by a 64th of an inch? I don't think I could tell that from 6 feet away on a permanent turf field and I have 20/15 vision.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by youngump

I have 20/15 vision.

I am so jealous.

[Mountaincoach]

Originally Posted by youngump

How good would a field have to be for you tell the difference between the foot being a 64th of inch over the pitching plate and being behind it by a 64th of an inch? I don't think I could tell that from 6 feet away on a permanent turf field and I have 20/15 vision.

I do not agree. It's VERY easy to see if that foot is on top of the plate. If you cannot see it from behind the plate, the FU should have an easy bird's eye view of it from the side. Call it. I saw this very thing happen just a few nights ago. The pitcher's heal was just barely touching the front vertical surface of the mound at the beginning of her windup. By the time she delivered her pitch, that foot was easily 8 or 10 inches off the mound with her toe driving down hard in the dirt. I was coaching 1st and quietly mentioned it to the field umpire who did nothing.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

How good would a field have to be for you tell the difference between the foot being a 64th of inch over the pitching plate and being behind it by a 64th of an inch? I don't think I could tell that from 6 feet away on a permanent turf field and I have 20/15 vision.

I don't have a problem telling on fields that have actual 24" x 6" undamaged plates with no large holes behind or in front. All you're looking for is a noticeable gap between the heel and the rubber where you can see the dirt.

It's those fields where it's obvious that the pitching plate has been the same for a few years such that it's missing chunks on the front edge, and/or there's a 2- to 4-inch crater in front of it. With those conditions, that sliver of dirt you see between the heel and what's left of the front edge of the plate can and should be ignored.