Revisiting the Crow Hop

[WestMichBlue]

It's too quiet here. So to generate a little controversy I am posting my Thesis on The Crow Hop vs The Leap.


A Crow Hop is the push-off by the pivot foot anywhere other than from the plate. Despite its unusual name, hopping is not involved. However, IMO, it is its name that causes people to mistakenly assume that when a modern pitcherÂ’s pivot foot is off the ground and then lands prior to the ball being released, they are guilty of a Crow Hop.

I think that some history can help clear up this misunderstanding. From 10 to 60 years ago the Leap was legal in Men’s ASA play. The pitcher would push hard with his pivot foot from the plate and become airborne, expecting the stride foot to land first, and then the ball would be released. If the pivot foot landed first the pitcher had created a new push-off point, and thus was guilty of an illegal pitch. A good pitcher would have both feet level during the leap and the stride foot would land fractionally ahead of the pivot foot. But if a pitcher got his weight back, or had the stride foot too high in the air, he would land on the pivot foot; the knee would buckle and re-straighten and there would be a funny little hop just before the stride foot landed and the pitch was released. Yes, it looked like a bird hop – thus the name.

The Leap was never legal for Women, and became illegal for Men a few years ago. Today if both feet are airborne the pitcher is guilty of a Leap – and it doesn’t matter what happens when the feet land! The illegal pitch has already been called – and you can’t call two IP’s. Thus – no CH!

Today the CH is retained to prevent a pitcher from picking up her pivot foot and replanting it on the plate or in front of the plate PRIOR to starting the pitch. This rule prevents a pitcher from pushing with the stride foot and landing the pivot foot well in front of the plate and THEN starting the pitch. Or, like a baseball pitcher, picking up the pivot foot and setting it down in front of the plate and then pitching.

I realize this concept of a CH seems radical, but I offer the following instruction to umpires on how to recognize a CH. It is from ASA POE#39 F.2 and NFHS POE #1 a: “To help the umpire determine whether or not the pitcher has replaced their pivot foot, the umpire should look at the location of the pivot foot WHEN the hands separate to start the pitch. If the pivot foot is off and in front of the pitching plate BEFORE the hands separate to start the pitch, this would be a “crow hop” and an illegal pitch should be called.”

Two very distinct illegal pitches - that occur at two very distinct times. The Crow Hop occurs prior to starting the pitch when the pivot foot picks up and replants. During the pitch if the pivot foot leaves the ground we have a Leap.

A CH requires very little umpire judgment; it is easy to call. (Easy, but very rare. I could go through 50 pitchers without seeing a CH.) A Leap however leaves a lot of latitude to umpire judgment. Just because the pivot foot breaks contact with the ground is not in itself illegal, and the rulebooks allow for uneven ground judgments. As noted by others, no umpire is going to lay on the ground and “sight” the foot height off the ground. It is strictly an umpire’s personal judgment as to what is legal or illegal. And, because that is going to vary between umpires, it is always going to be a source of frustration for pitchers and coaches. Just like the strike zone, players and coaches have to be able to “adjust.”

WMB

[Dakota]

I don't know about the history of the men's game, but I agree that if you see what the POE describes wrt timing of the hands separating and the location of the pivot foot, you have a crow hop.

My question (since the POE doesn't explicitly say this), is this the only way a crow hop can happen?

I agree that a leap followed by a second push off is merely a leap (since that illegal act happened first), but I wouldn't quibble with an umpire who called the second push for a crow hop call (maybe he didn't think the leap was above the level plane of the surrounding ground).

In the situation of the small (legal) leap followed by a replant and second push - haven't the hands already separated before the second push? Wasn't the pivot foot legally on the plate at the time of the separation of the hands?

I don't know - it's after midnight, outside temp is -5 with a -20 or so wind chill, and I'm trying to visualize pitching mechanics. WMB - did you used to pitch fastpitch?

[WestMichBlue]

"In the situation of the small (legal) leap followed by a replant and second push - haven't the hands already separated before the second push?"

YES.

"Wasn't the pivot foot legally on the plate at the time of the separation of the hands?"

YES. Can you have a legal leap and then an illegal CH? Technically, I suppose so. But it is hard to imagine if the pivot foot doesn't get high enough for you to call a leap that you will see a "re-push." I think that it is simply going to 'drag' on its return to terra firma.

When the Leap was still legal the ASA rules actually allowed for the pivot foot to land (replant) first, but it was an umpire's judgment whether the foot landing was a "slide and drag" to the side (legal), or a "re-push" (illegal). It is fairly easy to see the difference. You see a smooth continuous motion when the foot slides to the side and quickly the stride foot lands and the ball is delivered. When you have a "re-push" the knee buckles and straightens, the body moves forward a second time with the stride foot still in the air and there is this funny little "hopping" motion before the stride foot lands and the ball is delivered.

Personally, what I see in girl's pitching today is the "slide and drag" which would have been legal under the old rules. Whether or not we are going to call a leap is another matter, but I just never see a re-push.

"and I'm trying to visualize pitching mechanics. WMB - did you used to pitch fastpitch?"

YES. In the 60's and early 70's, back when FP was the game in West Michigan. But I was never a leaper. When I tried, my pivot foot always landed first and I got called for CH! So I never developed the blazing speed that many had. I stayed on the ground and focused on control. I was an average pitcher, but it was fun in those years. When I quit, I was done. I never could accept the SP style; too many of the challenges of the game (hitting, bunting, stealing) were gone.

I think that a lot of young men feel that way today, as FP seems to be making a comeback. Within a 30 min drive of my place are several parks with Men's FP leagues playing two nights a week. One park even has a Women's FP league. I can stay busy all summer without having to cross over to SP.

WMB

[greymule]

Clearly if the pivot foot is in front of the rubber before the hands separate, it's a crow hop. However, I think that most crow hops we see still come well after the hands separate.

WMB makes a good point that the term "crow hop" is misleading, since it leads people into thinking that the key element is whether the pivot foot became airborne. The airborne concept is reinforced by the advice the books give concerning grooves dug into the mound, about the foot not rising above the level of the surrounding ground.

I think that if the pivot foot does get airborne, then something illegal is probably happening, either a leap or a crow hop.

To me, the determining factor regarding whether there's a replant (ie, crow hop), is the buckling of the knee. Even then, there are so many borderline cases. Another factor is where the arm is when the pivot foot stops dragging. If it's at the top of the arc, it's probably a crow hop. If it has already swung around to where it's below the waist, it's probably not.

Regardless, the crow hop remains a problem in FP. I do hundreds of FP games every summer, including many strong tournaments. I see a zillion borderline crow hops, but neither I nor the dozens of umps I work with call anything but the flagrant violations.

We don't have the problem in baseball. A hop within an overhand delivery would be blatantly obvious.

[SamNVa]

WMB,

My reply is on eteamz. Basically I disagree with your interpretation that a crow hop must happen before the pitcher separates her hands; a;tjpugh I do agree that most illegal pitchers are guilty of leaping rather than crow hopping.

SamC

[Edited by SamNVa on Jan 22nd, 2004 at 01:19 PM]

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking ASA

First, let me point out that in the men's game, the leap is legal as long as the pitcher's pivot foot is pointing down (toes toward the ground).

To have a leap, the only requirement is that both feet must be airborne at the same time prior to the release of the ball (of course, you have the exception of a pitcher's foot over a hole, but that is considered to be touching the ground for the purpose of the rules).

To have a crow hop, the pitcher must have a point away from the pitcher's plate where they plant and push off the pivot foot after having lost contact with the pitcher's plate.

It is not necessary to have a leap prior to a replant to have a crow hop, but it could be. It is possible to have a crow hop prior to a leap. Whether the leap came before the crow hop is irrelevant as the call and result of either violation is identical.

No where does the rule require the hands to be in any particular situation.

The leap and crow hop are not themselves illegal, but the performance of either violate requirements necessary for a legal delivery (7.3.I & 7.3.H, respectively).

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
Speaking ASA
... snip ...
To have a leap, the only requirement is that both feet must be airborne at the same time prior to the release of the ball (of course, you have the exception of a pitcher's foot over a hole, but that is considered to be touching the ground for the purpose of the rules).

To have a crow hop, the pitcher must have a point away from the pitcher's plate where they plant and push off the pivot foot after having lost contact with the pitcher's plate.

It is not necessary to have a leap prior to a replant to have a crow hop, but it could be. It is possible to have a crow hop prior to a leap. Whether the leap came before the crow hop is irrelevant as the call and result of either violation is identical.

No where does the rule require the hands to be in any particular situation.

The leap and crow hop are not themselves illegal, but the performance of either violate requirements necessary for a legal delivery (7.3.I & 7.3.H, respectively).
[/B]

May I post this on the NFHS forum (with a suitable caveat)?