New "Two Second Pause" Pitching Interpretation (NCAA)
 

The NCAA has released a new interpretation for Rule 10.2. It seems to basically specify that F1 must have two feet on the pitching plate when a signal is taken, whether it comes from the dugout or F2.

"Any time a pitcher takes a signal from somewhere other than
the pitcher’s plate with hands separated, it is an illegal pitch,
unless she also takes another signal while in the position
required in Rule 10.2.1."

But wait there's more! If a batter is slow getting in the box, and the umpire has a hand up, the pitcher can throw without an additional pause when the PU signals ready for play.

I think this is going to be a headache to enforce. Am I wrong?

Big time headache. And this interp makes zero sense. How can a player create a violation, but then rectify the violation moments later? So we see the pitcher looking at the wristband off the Pitcher's plate. ILLEGAL. Then she gets on the pitcher's plate and takes the signal. OOPS, not ILLEGAL. Do we now have a "delayed-delayed dead ball signal"?

IMO, the entire interpretation is unnecessary and an insult to qualified umpires who work NCAA games

Not to mention, that it implies that " takes a signal from somewhere other than
the pitcher’s plate " with hands joined is legal.
Of course, I am taking this out of context of the whole rule; and I do not have or want an NCAA book. :rolleyes:

Ditto.

I have worked a few fall ball games using the "new" interpenetration. It is great!!! The game moves quicker, as once the pitcher takes the sign she goes into her motion. Not, step on the plate, pause and then go into her motion.
No problems what so ever.

Then she is illegal. A pause is still required.

No, she is not illegal. She paused while taking the signs.

The wording of the new NCAA rule still requires the pitcher to take another signal after they have engaged the pitching plate if they took one before engaging. So yes, the pitcher must still pause and take a signal after stepping on.

So why makes these two statements in the new interpretation (not a new rule):
-If the pitcher is taking a signal from an arm band, the needs to be done while she is in contact with the pitcher's plate.
-If a pitcher is taking a visual signal from a coach or player, this needs to be done while she is in contact with the pitcher's plate.

And this:
-Any time a pitcher takes a signal from somewhere other than the pitcher's plate (with hands separated*), it is an illegal pitch . . . (my emphasis added) "unless she also takes another signal while in the position required in rule 10.2.1"

As I stated in post 2, this just doesn't jive at all. The first statements and the first half of the last statement about the signal from off the PP, BUT, that can be negated if they did what was required by last year's interpretation. Even the AR's contradict the interpretation. Basically, as long as you are legal at some point, you are legal. So what really changed?

All the pitchers that I have seen this fall are only taking signs from on the pitcher's plate. So, a another pause is not required. And they have not been illegal.

IMO, it seems that this "added" level of interpretation simply addresses annoying coaches who probably whined that the pitcher was taking a signal from some place other than the PP. It doesn't change the rule or even the interpretation, just placates whining coaches.

That is not what you said in your first post.

The game moves quicker, as once the pitcher takes the sign she goes into her motion. Not, step on the plate, pause and then go into her motion.

The interpretation that has been issued requires the pitcher to still pause and take a signal after engaging the pitching plate. Your original statement would seem to say regardless of where the pitcher is once she has taken the signal she can immediately go into pitching motion.

As I said on a different forum, leave it to NCAA to take a very simple statement of the pitcher must take or simulate taking a signal after engaging the pitching plate and turn it into a convoluted 3 paragraph statement that contradicts itself several times. A whole bunch of confusing wording that changed nothing on how the rule is enforced.

Well, we all know that the NCAA does at least one thing to the rule book each year. Sometimes I wonder if they don't do that just to justify their committee's existence.