This happened today. Fed rules. High school tourney. I was in the field. Pitcher takes signal. Brings hands together and leans weight back. As she begins to move her weight forward her pivot foot "hops" 1/2" - 1" in the air and falls back on the same place on the rubber. Not forward or to the side. Then she would push off from the rubber and deliver the pitch. When it first happened I wasn't quite sure what I was seeing. Although unusual, plate ump and I weren't sure if this really met the definition of a crow hop. She still pushed off from the rubber every time and literally went straight up 1" max when she did her hop. We both agreed not to call it. Anyone ever see something like this? I know this a HTBT but would you see this as illegal?

It's strange all right, but it does not meet the definition of "crow hop." The pitcher did not establish a second starting point in front of the rubber.

Now, Fed rule 2-16 defines a crow hop as replant of the pivot foot. Which she did. It doesn't say anything about in front of the plate. I think it was WestMichBlue who gave us a history lesson on crow hops about 3 months ago. I believe I'd call this a step and still call it an IP.

Any way you look at it, she didn't keep contact with the rubber and the ground.

I saw a pitcher last year at our high school that did the same thing. She was a "step" style pitcher that hopped about 6" off the rubber before going home. Brian

"I believe I'd call this a step and still call it an IP"

I agree with you TexBlue. To take it a bit further, the NHFS POE (as does ASA POE 39) discusses a Crow Hop as follows: "A crow hop is defined as a replant of the pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch. This can be done by (2) lifting the pivot foot and stepping forward . . . prior to starting the pitch.

6.2.3 Note (or ASA 6.3.G) states that it is not a step if the pitcher slides her foot along the plate as long as she does not break contact. Then I guess you could say that if she lifts her foot (thus breaking contact) it is a step. I don't think that a step has to land in front of the plate. ASA adds an additional clarifying sentence "Raising the foot off the pitching plate and returning it to the plate creates a rocking motion and is an illegal act.


Little Jimmy: "Although unusual, plate ump and I weren't sure if this really met the definition of a crow hop."

Personally, I am convinenced that this is the intended definition of a crow hop. Anytime the pitcher shifts her weight back and lifts her pivot foot and sets it down on the plate, or in front of the plate, or jumps out in front of the plate - before starting her pitch she has committed a crow hop.

BTW, the NFHS web site has a PowerPoint with an interesting video clip of a coach demonstrating a major league CH. He steps way back, lifts his pivot foot 6" up, and drives forward. His pivot foot lands 3' out before his hands separate! After the pivot foot has landed he starts his windmill and then pitches. By time his stride foot lands he looks like he must be half-way home! Now that is a Crow Hop!!!

WMB

WMB<I>BTW, the NFHS web site has a PowerPoint with an interesting video clip of a coach demonstrating a major league CH. He steps way back, lifts his pivot foot 6" up, and drives forward. His pivot foot lands 3' out before his hands separate! After the pivot foot has landed he starts his windmill and then pitches. By time his stride foot lands he looks like he must be half-way home! Now that is a Crow Hop!!!</I>

Sounds more like a Kangaroo leap, than a Crow hop.
:D

"Sounds more like a Kangaroo leap, than a Crow hop"

Truthfully, I do not think there is a leap. He picks up his pivot foot and it moves backward behind the plate. Then as he starts forward the pivot sets down with the heel on the front edge of the plate. When he strides forward, his pivot foot toe is down and it appears to be a legal drag.

At the end of the drag the heel sets down. Now his pivot foot is on the ground; the stride foot is in the air, and his hands separate and he goes into the windmill. Looks just like any regular pitcher starting out except that he is 3' in front of the plate.

So we have Crow Hop, then legal drag, then violation of NFHS 6.2.c (ASA 6.3.H) "Pushing off with the pivot foot from a place other than the pitcher's plate is illegal."

(could you call two IP's and advance a runner from 2B to home? :D

WMB

By Fed's definition, "a replant of the pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch," it could be a crow hop. (Better would be "<i>delivery of</i> the pitch.")

ASA specifies "steps, hops, or drags <i>off the front</i> of the pitcher's plate, replants. . . ." This definition seems to establish that the crow how requires the replant to be in front of the rubber.

When I said that the plate ump and I weren't sure if the action I described met the definition of a crow hop I wasn't expressing myself correctly. The 1/2" - 1" vertical hop does meet the criteria ( loosing contact with the rubber, replanting the pivot foot, etc. ). Our concern was that the infraction was so minor that it amounted to looking for trouble. Kind of like the inch of so "leap" that we all think we see but aren't quite sure. Same with the 1" "hop". Am I seeing this? What's really happening?

”weren't sure if the action I described met the definition of a crow hop I wasn't expressing myself correctly”

Wow! Look at all those words we wrote trying to get a correct definition! But it’s worth it, for Crow Hop discussions are always interesting – and challenging.

So we all agree that the action you saw met the legal definition of an IP. But does it meet the umpire criteria? Does it violate the spirit of the rule? Is it easy to see and judge, or does it occur as one of many actions we are required to watch simultaneously?

IMO, the CH is the easiest call to make. It is very obvious when the pivot foot lifts up; you can see it from any direction on the field; it is at the very beginning of the pitching motion so we are not yet focused on the many other things we need to watch.

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.

WMB

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. Told him that was a coaching job, not an umpiring one. Continued looking through the game for an exagerration but it never came. In fact it became so mesmorizing that I had to make a conscientious decision to stop obsessing on it and focus on the rest of the game.

Good point about the hop, no matter how small, giving the extra power for the push off.

If you can see a 1/2-1 inch hop from your position, your name must be Hubble or you're looking at it while prone. Either means that your eyesight is just too damn good to be that of an umpire's.

BTW, as described, this pitch does not meet the definition of a crow hop as the push-off point was from the pitcher's plate.

"BTW, as described, this pitch does not meet the definition of a crow hop as the push-off point was from the pitcher's plate"

Wrong. NFHS question, Mike.

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

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

One more reason they should expediously remove themselves from the rule-making process.

"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. :D

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

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

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.

'Cause it's fun! :cool:

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?

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.

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.

Quote:

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!

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.

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).

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.

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.