NCAA Pitching Rule Change - 2020/21 - One foot on Pitching Plate now OK
 

The new rules:

10.1.1 – The pitcher is considered to be in the pitching position when she has her hands apart, her pivot foot in
contact with the pitcher’s plate, both feet on the ground within the 24-inch length of the pitcher’s plate, the hips
in line with first and third bases, she steps forward, puts both feet on the pitcher’s plate, and the catcher is in
position to receive the pitch.

10.2.1.1 – Both feet must be on the ground in contact with the pitcher’s plate. Any part of each foot in contact
with the ground or pitcher’s plate must be completely within the 24-inch length of the pitcher’s plate. The stride
foot may be on or behind the pitcher’s plate as far back as desired. Once the pitcher initially sets the toe of her
stride foot, she may not step back any farther to increase the distance behind the pitcher’s plate.

Basically, starting next year, NCAA is going to NFHS-style pitching rules with a minor tweak -- one foot (pivot foot) only on the pitcher's plate & no step back allowed.

Thoughts?

Personally, I'm OK with this. The rationale was that (1) it's hard for umpires to see if the stride foot is "toed up" to the plate, and; (2) the change will "provide pitchers with greater balance and take into account their variances in sizes and strengths without creating any type of unfair advantage" which is very similar to the NFHS rationale.

Now I put on my "conspiracy theorist" hat: Is this a change made to benefit USA NCAA pitching in preparation for Olympics 2020? The new pitching rule has a lot in common with the international rule, and I sure didn't see this rule change listed on the postseason rules survey. Maybe I missed it.

When was the last time you called an IP on the hips not being in line? Or for that matter even took it into consideration? :)

Really? That's pretty damn weak.

Maybe there should be height and weight restrictions also to make sure there are no "unfair" advantages

You believe this was a problem in the past? IMO, the present rule is beneficial as it demands more physical command of one's body. I have often noticed that in the HS game where the pitchers who played for under a rule set that requires both feet to be in contact with the PP (at least in my area) tended to have a much higher level of skills and mechanics then a pitcher who didn't. But this is just my perception, your's may vary.


My theory would be this is a coach-led effort to reduce restrictions on their pitchers.

I'm also curious as to whether the restriction of a second placement of the non-pivot foot will actually be enforced. My guess will be that umpires will be directed to not get picky with that restriction if that wording isn't changed. Anyone want to bet the discussion will come around concerning the definition of an "initial set of the non-pivot foot" ? ;)

Well, you asked for my thoughts :D

I understand that the rationale was so that the pitcher doesn't receive the signal while not in contact with the plate, and then walk onto the plate and immediately start the delivery. That, to me, is a weak rationale to counter umpires who weren't enforcing the two-second rule. Regardless, now the pitcher must be in contact to receive signals, either with one or both feet. If she's not in contact when she receives them, it's an Illegal Pitch.

I don't think this change was proposed in the survey either, if memory serves. As for your conspiracy theory, I have no opinion.

I'm not sure we're going to see much change in how pitchers take a signal from the plate. If a pitcher used to get onto the plate with both feet, with her hands separated, looked in the dugout or at the catcher to receive the signal, and then put her hands together, I don't see why she would suddenly change by putting her stride foot behind the plate.

The real change will be to those pitchers who would take the signal while not in contact, and then walk onto the plate with both feet and abide by the two-second rule. Now, they have to be in contact with the plate.

How will anyone know they are actually receiving their signals at any specific moment?

In most cases it will be obvious (e.g., she looks into the dugout and then looks down at her wristband). But when it's not so obvious (e.g., she just looks at her catcher), I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.

And who says there is a signal to be taken? :)

From the press release:

So whether or not there is an actual signal, she is required to be in this "signal-taking" position (facing the catcher with at least her pivot foot contacting the plate, and her hands separated) to take or simulate taking. She can no longer take or simulate taking while not in contact with the plate.