It really was a "hop"

[Del-Blue]

Why is everyone trying to decide if this is a crow hop, or just an illegal pitch. She must keep contact with the pitchers plate or push off. If she looses contact with the PP on her step back, or her lean back it is an illegal pitch.

That said, if it is only an inch, I'm not sure I could tell if she lifted her foot or not.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Del-Blue
Why is everyone trying to decide if this is a crow hop, or just an illegal pitch.

'Cause it's fun!

[Dakota]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
NFHS 2.16: "A crow hop is the replant of the pivot foot pror to delivering the pitch.

Pick it up, set it down. Plant 'n replant.

WMB

Question for thought, WMB...

NFHS rules.

Can there be a replant without either a leap or a push off?

IOW, can a pitcher drag and "replant" (no push off) for a crow hop?

[CecilOne]

I think this agrees with Del-Blue and repeats an earlier comment of mine, that maybe we should stop defining and explaining the term crow hop and just focus on what is illegal:
- pushing off from anywhere but the pitching plate or
- rocking : "Raising the foot off the pitching plate and returning it to the plate" or
- in NFHS, replanting
- leaping, etc.

My understanding of "replant" is lifting, dragging or otherwise moving the pivot foot and ending up with it "cleats down" before the release of the pitch. I'm tempted to find a dictionary that defines "plant" in a way that sounds just like "push off"; but no time. The difference is not entirely clear. Then we could answer the Dakota question of "Can there be a replant without either a leap or a push off?", but we should give up on the "for a crow hop" part.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"Well, I guess I need not tell you what I think of the Federation's idea of rules are, do I?"

Really? I had no clue.

Of course, I don't suppose you'd like to hear my rant about ASA's sexist restriction on female pitchers, would you?

Hey, knock yourself out. Not many people would disagree with you including myself. The rule change for the "leap" was originally for ALL FP pitchers, but was changed in committee to be for the men only. Too many JO purists (as if there is any part of the game out there that is still "pure") wouldn't pass it if the change included JO ball.

Now if everyone (ASA, NFHS, NCAA) would simply adopt the ISF crow hop rule we could eliminate all this frustration. And save about fourteen point five million keystrokes a year on Internet Forumns!

WMB

Yeah, like that is going to happen!

[Andy]

Originally posted by Little Jimmy
WestMichBlue,

Your post described everything going through my and my partners mind. I did go to the pitchers' coach and tell him how close she was. He responded by saying "she won"t listen to me" and said I should tell her.

Just to take this away from the IP discussion for a moment, it sounds to me like this coach is giving you the green light to call the IP on his pitcher. It sounds like he has given up trying to correct it and she's not getting called for it.

I had a similar situation at a tournament recently. I made an interference call on a baserunner that took a path designed to make the fielder change her path to the ball. No contact, but the fielder reacted to the presence of the runner. After the game, the coach of the team that was called for interference thanked me for making that call, because it reinforced what he was trying to teach his players about baserunning.

[Little Jimmy]

Two things.

I don't know about my eyesight, but I am a stickler for details. I knew that foot was getting up but really wasn't sure if anyone else could see it.

I'm sure that the pitchers' coach was doing just that (trying to get me to call it on her because she wouldn't listen to him). This girl has a reputation as raw talent but uncoachable. If the coach who is with her for 2-3 months a year can't reason with her then don't expect me to do it ( unless, of course, it was an obvious violation).

[Woodchuck]

Little Jimmy - If you and your partner saw the pitcher lift her pivot foot up off the pitchers plate then you should have called and IP. Did the other pitcher use the same method of pitching. You and others that have answered your post are saying there is no advantage, bull, if this is the only way she can pitch then you were giving her and advantage on every pitch that she delivered. Our job is to call the rules the way they were written for the game that we are calling, not how we believe they should be called.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by Woodchuck
You and others that have answered your post are saying there is no advantage, bull, if this is the only way she can pitch then you were giving her and advantage on every pitch that she delivered. Our job is to call the rules the way they were written for the game that we are calling, not how we believe they should be called.

Nice rant, Woodchuck, but what thread did YOU read?

Please provide the quote from the responder who claimed "no advantage" as a reason to not call this.

I saw "minor" infraction (which is a valid argument, since the penalty is major). This aligns with the notion that you must see the out to call it.

I saw questioning that such a small leap would not be seen without crouching down.

I saw questioning on whether this was technically a crow hop v. other IP (such as leap) and whether or not that even mattered (i.e. just call the IP).

But I just went back and scanned the entire thread again, and didn't see "no advantage." Maybe I missed it, though... so please show me. (BTW, I agree with the point of your rant - "no advantage" drives me crazy!)

[Woodchuck]

Originally posted by Dakota

Nice rant, Woodchuck, but what thread did YOU read?

Please provide the quote from the responder who claimed "no advantage" as a reason to not call this.

I saw "minor" infraction (which is a valid argument, since the penalty is major). This aligns with the notion that you must see the out to call it.

I saw questioning that such a small leap would not be seen without crouching down.

I saw questioning on whether this was technically a crow hop v. other IP (such as leap) and whether or not that even mattered (i.e. just call the IP).

But I just went back and scanned the entire thread again, and didn't see "no advantage." Maybe I missed it, though... so please show me. (BTW, I agree with the point of your rant - "no advantage" drives me crazy!)

Little Jimmy stated - "Our concern was that the infraction was so minor that it amounted to looking for trouble."

WestMitchBlue stated - "As you said, the lift is minor. Would I call it? Probably not. But I would say something to the coach. I’d tell him that the pitcher needs to keep her foot down, and if its a repetitive action (happens every pitch) or gets worse that it will be called. And then call it.

The CH is not a minor infraction; it definitely gains the pitcher an advantage; an illegal advantage. The lifting of the foot indicates the pitcher is getting a greater weight shift backwards than she would if she were legal. That can translate into a more powerful and longer drive forward, thus putting her closer to home upon release of the ball, and increasing ball speed.

The problem with the minor foot lift is that if you let it go it can suddenly get worse. When the pitcher starts to tire a bit, or needs to reach back and really throw the hard one, then suddenly the foot raises 2” of 3”. Now you call the IP – or you don’t call it! Either way, one side or the other is going to be on you.

Keeping the foot down is easy for a pitcher to correct; I’d get it corrected at the beginning of the game so it doesn’t come back and bite me later."

Dokota - These statements are what I considered to mean as no advantage to the pitcher. If the pitcher makes this same move on every pitch and the IP is not called by the umpires then the pitcher is gaining and advantage for failure to call the IP. When I'm the PU I can see the pitcher lift her foot quite easily, when the BU I can only see this lifting of the pivot foot when in foul territory with no one on base. When I see and IP I call it every time. No where in the NFHS rules does it state that umpires overlook minor infractions (what ever they are) and that is how I believe every umpire should call the game, by the rules. No rant intended.