NCAA Pitching Rule Change Guidance - Released today
 

Whoa.

This is new as of less than 12 hours ago. I'm not sure there is rule support for an IP violation of this kind before F1 steps onto the pitching plate. But I'm not an interpreter... Thoughts from the crowd?

(Thoughts of "Glad I don't do NCAA because their rules are bullshit" not welcome. You know who you are. :D)

IMO, the rule involving taking a signal is now and always had been a waste of ink in the rule book.

The general purpose is about timing for the batter to be aware the pitcher can start a delivery. All rule sets have demands and restrictions in place that provides such an indicator without anything involving the taking of a signal in any manner.

Or, they could just require a pause.

Just bad information.

If F1 is in the back of the circle looking at her arm band and I call IP, DC will protest that ruling, and DC will prevail.

F1 can take all the signals she wants, from wherever she wants (in the allotted time), as long as, when she steps on the PP, she takes a signal.

There's more to that memo, that's not included in this thread, that is just as nonsensical as this:

"If pitcher is outside the circle and she takes a signal (looks at her arm band for a pitch signal) - runners may advance - keep the play live until action has ended - then enforce penalties."

What penalties?!?! Nobody's done anything wrong!!

Which was my point, but I have a feeling you know that

nope, not in NCAA starting . . . now (actually last week)


nope, not in NCAA starting . . . now (actually last week)

The memo is the memo. If F1 looks at the armband while not in the position to pitch, it is an IP. No protest needed, it is now the interpretation of the rule. Pretty cut and dry, and only applies to "looking at the armband while not in the position to pitch."

The fall season has just started, so we will see the fall out (no pun intended). Maybe this gets changed prior to the start of the season, who knows, but it is the "rule" as of right now.

And what happens when some smart-ass coach sends his pitcher out with a simple sweat band to look at? For that matter, who is to say the pitcher couldn't still look at the wrist band from the PP after looking at it prior to that?

Stupid rule change, but it isn't like it would be a first for the NCAA :)

Insanity. Who's to say she's not looking at her favorite freckle? There's no rule against it. Just no quick pitch once they step on the PP.

Did you see the rule change?
The note is red is now "struck out" and removed (I left it here to show you it was removed and how the interpretation now follows the written rule), with the INTERPRETATION that F1 is PRECLUDED from looking at her wrist band while not in the pitching position. So yeah, there is a "rule against it." And don't be so daft to think "Im looking at my favorite freckle." That something an idiot coach would say, and I would hope your game management is up to par to deal with it.

I'm actually OK with this interpretation. Hopefully, the unintended consequence is that the number wrist bands go away. And hopefully the game picks up a little pace.

my comment was obviously intended to be tongue-in-cheek, but also to equate the looking at the armband with looking in the dugout, looking at the catcher, looking at whatever (all within the allowed time), and then stepping on the PP and taking the signal.

I'm not a fan of this rule change either. Seems to me that if more umpires enforced the old 2-second-pause rule, none of this would've been necessary. Who cares what the pitcher does beforehand? As long as she then gets on the pitcher's plate and then keeps her hands separated for at least two seconds before bringing them together, there should be no problem.

But I guess there was enough of a problem to create this change. So now she can't take any signal until she's in contact with the plate. I think it's going to be pretty straightforward to enforce the "no looking at the armband from behind the plate" prohibition.

What I really think is strange is that they will allow her to take a signal from the catcher while behind the plate. Why is that? If she can do that, and then be required to take the signal again while on the plate (or simulate taking it), that's the same as it was before. And there's still the possibility of the pitcher walking into her pitch, which is what this new change was supposed to prevent.

So if she refers to the armband to get the signal, she can't do it until she's on the plate. But she can take a signal from behind the plate if it comes from the catcher the old-fashioned way. Is that how I'm reading this?

Actually, it was the ambiguity of the interpretation from last fall, which said that a) you couldn't look at an armband while not in the pitching position, but b) if you did, it wasn't an illegal pitch if you did simulate once you got into the pitching position. This really isn't the umpire's doing, it was a select few coaches who complained (and I know one of them, and know exactly the moment she did), and this is hopefully the final stop in the (de)evolution of the rule and interpretation.

Not exactly. She is only prohibited from looking at the signal arm band while not in the pitching position.

You are reading this correctly. This has EVERYTHING and ONLY to do with the signal arm bands. Don't over complicate this interpretation. As you say, she can receive a signal from catcher/coach while not in the pitching position (as long as she doesn't look at the armband), and then take/simulate the signal once in the pitching position (and we need to use this new phrasing, because she doesn't need to be "on" in the traditional "two feet" sense). But if she looks down at the signal arm band -- ILLEGAL. And hopefully she aborts the pitch.

Personally, I wish they would just make the signal arm band illegal.

Or the NCAA stop kowtowing to the coaches who are more about personal recognition than the players and the game.

Well, when 6/8 members of the rules committee are head coaches...

It's an interesting philosophical question though. Who owns the game and stewardship of its rules? The participants, the officials, or a third party?

I think USA has the better system. Hundreds of folks and the umpires only have about 15 votes (RUIC). But everything is broken down and discussed in multiple committees. There is even an opportunity to bring something that didn't get a committee approval to the entire convention to get a change accepted.