Fastpitch Pitcher's Rule Proposal

[ukumpire]

Greetings
With thanks to Charlie we now have a link to my proposal. To everyone else that offered help Dakota, Steve etc thank you.

http://charliewaller.us/umpire/ISF_Pitching.pdf

This is an ISF version of the Proposal with references to the sport of 'Cricket' of which the USA won the 1st ever World Cup!
Hope you still remember partial theories to the sport!

Although all the Rule Points are taken from the ISF Rule Book I know that they all pertain to the ASA version and if concensus in good in principal to the proposal then I shall translate it into ASA Lanuage

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by ukumpire

Greetings
With thanks to Charlie we now have a link to my proposal. To everyone else that offered help Dakota, Steve etc thank you.

http://charliewaller.us/umpire/ISF_Pitching.pdf

This is an ISF version of the Proposal with references to the sport of 'Cricket' of which the USA won the 1st ever World Cup!
Hope you still remember partial theories to the sport!

Although all the Rule Points are taken from the ISF Rule Book I know that they all pertain to the ASA version and if concensus in good in principal to the proposal then I shall translate it into ASA Lanuage

It is an interesting concept; however I do not like the idea of using rules to negate the advantage of athletes with superior skills or size. (The NBA would have to send Yao Ming back to China.)

The real issue with FP softball - the one that generates maybe 75% of the comments on umpire boards and in clinics, locker rooms, etc. is the illegal or perceived illegal footwork - leaping or crow hopping. The solution is extremely simple.

Turn the clock back to the rules in place for 50 years before ASA took control. Allow the step back, and require that the pivot foot remain in contact with the plate until the ball is released. No need to even define leaps or crow hops - they don't exist. Landing within 24" is not required. That spells the end of 98% of IP issues.

WMB

Note: the reference to ASA is not a slam but simply a historical reference. The Joint Rules Committee, of which ASA was simply one of twenty-some voices, wrote softball rules for 50 years. Rules were relatively consistant over time and, IMO, followed a purist concept of the sport. About 1980 the JRC was disbanded and ASA took over. Pitching rules seemed to change yearly, probably in response to ASA's constituents - the players (especially the spoiled male pitchers).

[ukumpire]

With all due respect, the proposed change has nothing to do with negating a skill advantage (somebody who throws 80mph will still be able/allowed to throw 80mph), and it has very little to do with negating a size advantage (other than to say that pitching from 46 feet means exactly that - EVERYONE releases the ball from 46 feet).

What the proposal *does* do is make enforcement of the rule *objective* and *consistent*, both of which are virtually non-existent today. The only thing that would matter is the location of the front foot at the time of release.

Turning the clock back 50 years would do nothing to eliminate the subjectivity in determining whether or not the pivot foot is in contact with the rubber at the time of release. Even worse, though, is that almost every pitcher today would have to relearn his/her craft to comply with the requirement that the pivot foot remains in contact with the rubber until the ball is released. Consistent enforcement would become an even bigger nightmare for umpires than it is under today's rules.

Originally Posted by WestMichBlue

It is an interesting concept; however I do not like the idea of using rules to negate the advantage of athletes with superior skills or size. (The NBA would have to send Yao Ming back to China.)

The real issue with FP softball - the one that generates maybe 75% of the comments on umpire boards and in clinics, locker rooms, etc. is the illegal or perceived illegal footwork - leaping or crow hopping. The solution is extremely simple.

Turn the clock back to the rules in place for 50 years before ASA took control. Allow the step back, and require that the pivot foot remain in contact with the plate until the ball is released. No need to even define leaps or crow hops - they don't exist. Landing within 24" is not required. That spells the end of 98% of IP issues.

WMB

Note: the reference to ASA is not a slam but simply a historical reference. The Joint Rules Committee, of which ASA was simply one of twenty-some voices, wrote softball rules for 50 years. Rules were relatively consistant over time and, IMO, followed a purist concept of the sport. About 1980 the JRC was disbanded and ASA took over. Pitching rules seemed to change yearly, probably in response to ASA's constituents - the players (especially the spoiled male pitchers).

[IRISHMAFIA]

I'm sorry, but I would like to report a theft.

For those on this board who may remember, this sounds an awfully a lot like my suggestion the the PP be moved to 46-50 feet as a starting point and allow the pitcher to do anything as long as their lead foot does not touch the circle which would still be 16' in diameter.

At that time I noted that it would be a difficult sell, but would basically have many pitchers would be throwing from at 43' without all the CS involved.

[ukumpire]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I'm sorry, but I would like to report a theft.

For those on this board who may remember, this sounds an awfully a lot like my suggestion the the PP be moved to 46-50 feet as a starting point and allow the pitcher to do anything as long as their lead foot does not touch the circle which would still be 16' in diameter.

At that time I noted that it would be a difficult sell, but would basically have many pitchers would be throwing from at 43' without all the CS involved.

You may well want to report a 'Theft' but if you look at the document you shall see that it was 1st written in 2005.
However I shall settle for 'Great minds thing Alike'!!

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by ukumpire

Greetings
With thanks to Charlie we now have a link to my proposal. To everyone else that offered help Dakota, Steve etc thank you.

http://charliewaller.us/umpire/ISF_Pitching.pdf

This is an ISF version of the Proposal with references to the sport of 'Cricket' of which the USA won the 1st ever World Cup!
Hope you still remember partial theories to the sport!

Although all the Rule Points are taken from the ISF Rule Book I know that they all pertain to the ASA version and if concensus in good in principal to the proposal then I shall translate it into ASA Lanuage

An interesting concept - and professionally presented.

I would only challenge one element of the proposal.

You said:

Our proposed changes do not require pitchers to “relearn” their craft. To the contrary, not only do all currently legal techniques remain legal, but many pitching styles that were previously illegal (involving rocking, leaping, and crow-hopping, to name a few) now become legal as well.

Pitchers will always try to optimize their delivery for maximum effectiveness (i.e. velocity) within the constraints of a legal delivery.

Pitchers are not taught to take a running start although that is a drill that many pitchers do. Some pitches would be rather difficult to throw with a running start, like a dropball, for instance. (Because the stride is shortened to impart more down spin on the ball.)

Basically, your proposal is going to effectively force pitchers to adopt a style of running and pitching, because, clearly, more velocity can be generated in that manner. Those who do not adapt will be left behind by those who do.

In your proposal, you suggest that current pitching techniques could still be employed. Not really.

What if a pitcher wanted to continue to adopt her current pitching style, as if she were pitching from a pitcher's plate? She really can't because there will be no pitcher's plate. She will be forced to pitch from bare dirt with no push off support that a plate typically provides. That is no small matter, by the way.

Also, what about a pitcher who decides she is going to dig a hole in that area to provide her that support? Can she dig a hole in the middle of the pitcher's circle? And what if that hole interferes with the run-and-throw style of the other pitcher?

I still find the concept intriguing; yet, I can see some potential problems that you have not addressed.

A reason to adopt a rule should never be making life easier for the umpire, however. It should always be about the game and the players.

Adopting this rule for this reason (making it easier for the umpire) is tantamount to conceding that there is an epidemic of non-standard enforcement in this area.

Is that true? Is there evidence of this?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Pitchers are not taught to take a running start although that is a drill that many pitchers do. Some pitches would be rather difficult to throw with a running start, like a dropball, for instance. (Because the stride is shortened to impart more down spin on the ball.)

I would think that the term "running start" may be a bit exaggerated as some invision it, but the movement of the approaching pitcher is probably meant to be more of a distraction then improving the pitch itself.

What if a pitcher wanted to continue to adopt her current pitching style, as if she were pitching from a pitcher's plate? She really can't because there will be no pitcher's plate. She will be forced to pitch from bare dirt with no push off support that a plate typically provides. That is no small matter, by the way.

I don't think it is that big a deal. You will find engineers on the mound erecting small mountains which they will use as a starting point, just as you find in the batter's box.

Also, what about a pitcher who decides she is going to dig a hole in that area to provide her that support? Can she dig a hole in the middle of the pitcher's circle? And what if that hole interferes with the run-and-throw style of the other pitcher?

Then she can fill it in as they presently do.

A reason to adopt a rule should never be making life easier for the umpire, however. It should always be about the game and the players.

Adopting this rule for this reason (making it easier for the umpire) is tantamount to conceding that there is an epidemic of non-standard enforcement in this area.

Is that true? Is there evidence of this?

Of course, it is and you should know that from reading this board. At certain levels, tournaments, showcases, leagues, etc. umpires are often directed in what may be allowable, what will not be called and what should be ignored. OTOH, the umpires are also directed in certain things for which they should be on the look-out and call a certain violation tight while letting another go. Do I agree with it? Not necessarily, but it is their game, not mine. There are quite a few umpires on this board that work NCAA, the pro game, the upper levels of men and women FP along that will tell you there are allowances made as directed or you will not be working that game for very long. As I said, it is their game, no the umpires'.

It improves the game for the players as well as the umpires and coaches is that it allows all to concentrate on other aspects of the game. It reduces the constant claims by coaches that the other team's pitcher is illegal as hell while their little darling couldn't possible be leapin in spite of the fact you saw the same move during the HS production of Swan Lake last week. The game can do nothing, but improve if the umpires do not need to be in a certain place to observe the pitcher. Many have seen the advantages of moving the BU into the B in SP and have asked why this hasn't been done in FP. Right now, the only reason being given for keeping the 1B umpire on the line is the IP.

This means the coaches go back to coaching their own players, the players deal with the things they need to do to make the plays and the umpires are given more leeway to be in a position to watch the plays.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I would think that the term "running start" may be a bit exaggerated as some invision it, but the movement of the approaching pitcher is probably meant to be more of a distraction then improving the pitch itself.

Of course, the "running start" is going to have to be within the confines of the pitching circle. But that will still be a 2-step-and-throw process, at least. That's about the extent of the drill many pitchers use to emphasize momentum.

Unquestionably, their velocity will go up significantly doing this. This will largely be negated by the greater pitching distance; so, in that regard, I consider it a wash.

Coaches will want their pitchers to take full advantage of this and any pitcher that does not will be left behind. The fallout of this will be that pitchers will have to adjust their style. Pitching from a stationary position will be thing of the past.

Adapting will essentially be mandatory if a pitcher is going to progress to higher levels. The notion that the pitchers will be free to employ whatever technique they desire is naive. This kind of latitude extended toward the pitcher will simply set a new standard in pitching mechanics. You can take that to the bank!

I don't think it is that big a deal. You will find engineers on the mound erecting small mountains which they will use as a starting point, just as you find in the batter's box.

Then she can fill it in as they presently do.

The way it is now, pitchers all understand that a hole will develop in front of the pitching plate (common for both of them) and, to a lesser degree, a hole will also develop in the area where their stride foot falls. (That may vary depending on the pitcher's leg and stride length - but it usually is similar and seldom poses a problem.)

You're probably right - it won't be that big of a deal. But if a pitcher insists on pitching from a stationary position, she is definitely going to be doing some serious landscaping - much to the chagrin of the step-and-throw pitcher.

You say they can fill it in. That doesn't work very well because it is usually very loose dirt. The pitcher's movements are much more dynamic than the batter's so the comparison isn't completely fair.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bkbjones]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

You say they can fill it in. That doesn't work very well because it is usually very loose dirt. The pitcher's movements are much more dynamic than the batter's so the comparison isn't completely fair.

I dunno how it is in the rest of the country, but I do know that up here on the complexes we use for championship play (basically 16 fields at four complexes) there are hard clay "bricks" buried fairly shallowly in the batters boxes and around the pitcher's plates. We have very few problems with the big holes on those fields.

Of course, we don't always play on those fields...and we have many single fields that don't use the bricks.

I'm still contemplating pros and cons of the proposal. And, Spencer, we don't even have to demur to cricket. Similar rules were in force for good ol' baseball for many years until the move to 60 feet, 6 inches. (It's where the term "back through the box" comes from, even though there hasn't been a box in over 100 years.)

However, I cannot buy the argument that this change may only be for the benefit of umpires and not for players or coaches. Anything that makes it easier to do our job better inherently makes the game better for players and coaches. Quieting the nattering nabobs of the offensive team hollering about illegal this or that will be of great benefit to umpires, UICs and tournament directors everywhere.

[WestMichBlue]

Originally Posted by ukumpire

With all due respect, the proposed change has - - - very little to do with negating a size advantage (other than to say that pitching from 46 feet means exactly that - EVERYONE releases the ball from 46 feet).

What? The very first advantage listed is to Level the Playing Field - to take away the advantage of taller players or those with long strides. Why should everyone be forced to pitch from the same distance? This is a sport - size matters! Height, weight, quickness are physical attributes that aid or hinder an athlete in a competitive environment.

Turning the clock back 50 years would do nothing to eliminate the subjectivity in determining whether or not the pivot foot is in contact with the rubber at the time of release.

OK, I mis-stated the rule which, just before the drag was legalized, said that the pivot foot had to remain in contact with the plate until the stride foot landed. That is very simple for any umpire to see.

Even worse, though, is that almost every pitcher today would have to relearn his/her craft to comply with the requirement that the pivot foot remains in contact with the rubber until........

That is not true. It is very easy to pitch from the plate. In fact, many girls are changing from the "leap 'n drag" style to a shorter, more upright pitching from the plate. They are giving up power in favor of more control. (A young lady I taught the power style when she was eleven gave it up in favor of the "K" style. She lost maybe 4 or 5 games in four years of varsity pitching, won a state championship, and is now playing at a D1 school.)

I personally would get behind this change to the FP rules. No more Leaps, no more Crow Hops, no more arguements about Plants and Re-Plants and secondary push-off's, etc. etc, etc. Very simple pitching rule and umpires could go back to watching the rest of the game and coaches would go back to coaching (and some pitching coaches would be out of work!)

With today's hitting skills and hi-tech bats, this change would probably create more offense. Could require further restrictions on bat exit speed. However, the superior pitcher would still dominate the poorer batting teams.

WMB

[ukumpire]

A few more points to ponder:

1. One objection that I've heard several times has to do with player safety. Specifically, there are concerns about the pitcher hurting herself if her stride ends up on the rubber. How do you get it through someone's head that, if you do things that violate the rules, you'll likely put yourself in harm's way? You're not *supposed* to step onto the rubber! I would argue that the same (or greater) risk exists for baserunners, who are required by rule to step on/touch the bases and home plate. We don't seem to have much concern for that aspect of player safety, so why should we worry about potential injuries incurred from an act that violates the rules?
2. Concerns about holes/trenches... They already exist today, and nothing you do will change that. If anything, the proposed change probably makes things *better* for everyone because the final trench (the one just behind the rubber) will be in the same spot for everyone.
3. Not having a rubber to push off... Seriously, how many pitchers do you see who actually push off the rubber any more??? More often, they have the heel of the pivot foot barely in contact with the front edge of the rubber prior to the start of the pitch, and then they slide it forward even more during the delivery.
4. Unfairly penalizing tall pitchers (i.e., the Yao Ming analogy)... When Yao shoots a free throw, is he allowed to take advantage of his height to get him closer to the basket at the time of release? Can he take a long stride and release the shot just before landing? No, and no. Why? Because the rules say the shooter has to be behind the free throw line at the time of release and can't step on or across the line until the ball strikes the rim. He *can* shoot the ball as hard or as softly as he wants, he *can* release the ball from anywhere inside the semi-circle, and he *can* jump as high as he wants before releasing the ball. What he *can't* do is shoot from closer than 15 feet. That's the rule, and it's the same for everyone, regardless of how tall or short he is. Nothing wrong with that, is there...?

As somebody has already pointed out, anything that you can do to minimize the need for judgment by the umpire can only have a positive effect on the game. More Consistency + Fewer Arguments = Much More Enjoyable Game for Everyone.

And finally, an amusing anecdote. Several years ago, there was a young woman who pitched for a D-III college in the Northeast. She was notorious as a "leaper." Sometimes she got away with it, and sometimes she didn't. One thing was always certain, though - there was *always* controversy when she pitched, and as an umpire, you knew what you were in for before you set foot on the field. Evidently, *she* finally had enough of it, too, and decided to try to eliminate the controversy at the start of her final year of eligibility. Her strategy? Every inning after taking her warm-up pitches, she would carefully construct a 6-inch high mound of loose dirt just forward of the pitching rubber. Can't very well call an illegal pitch for leaping if the toe is kicking up dirt, right? True story...

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by ukumpire

A few more points to ponder:
[LIST=1][*]One objection that I've heard several times has to do with player safety. Specifically, there are concerns about the pitcher hurting herself if her stride ends up on the rubber...

I have seen many games played on fields that have multiple pitching rubbers because the field is there to accommodate players of various ages who often have varying pitching distances. The pitching rubbers are "permanently" left on the field as a matter of convenience and expedience for the ground crews.

Invariably there is a pitching rubber at 35-feet (for the 10U league) and 40-feet (for most other leagues). Unfortunately, the older girls who pitch from the 40-foot pitching rubber have to contend with the stride foot landing on or near the 35-foot rubber. They frequently have to alter their mechanics to avoid landing on it, or worse, on it.

The pitchers hate this and it was a common complaint.

Sometimes we were successful in lobbying for the removal of the 35-foot rubber and sometimes we were not. Usually we were unsuccessful and the pitchers simply had to deal with it.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[wadeintothem]

Hopefully this proposal gets the consideration it deserves.. ie some goof off talking on an MB and thats about it. Even the communist reasons for the change and conclusions are irritating.

[ukumpire]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

Hopefully this proposal gets the consideration it deserves.. ie some goof off talking on an MB and thats about it. Even the communist reasons for the change and conclusions are irritating.

Wityh due respect - You know I am the 1st to accept criticism, but what makes real good sense for me to accept anything, is logical comments on how you perceive this idea to be so, instead of just making a damn rash challenge without explanation.

Let me know why you disagree with this proposal in a constructive way, and then maybe I shall turn from 'Communism into Capitalist'

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by ukumpire

Wityh due respect - You know I am the 1st to accept criticism, but what makes real good sense for me to accept anything, is logical comments on how you perceive this idea to be so, instead of just making a damn rash challenge without explanation.

Let me know why you disagree with this proposal in a constructive way, and then maybe I shall turn from 'Communism into Capitalist'

I take issue with your reasons for the change and the change itself.

*******izing laughable cricket pitching method into softball under the guise of "leveling the playing field" is just more international sour grapes over your inferior softball players.

This is the equivalent of me proposing to add: hands on the ball, helmet, and pads to soccer to make the sport worthy and to level the playing field so that America might do better on the international soccer scene.

I think great pitchers like Jenny Finch & Cat Osterman have added almost immeasurable popularity to softball. Greats are what make the sport what it is. Do they crush your international teams? Of course they do. You stand little to no chance against USA in softball. That is NOT a valid reason to change pitching.

I have an alternate proposal, you guys get good at softball.