Pitching videos.
 

Don't know if any of you have seen these yet (I am sure some of you have) from NFHS.

http://www.nfhs.org/web/2008/02/soft..._training.aspx

Applicable to most rulesets.

They are good and we have passed the links around our local association. Thanks for sharing.

One thing I would like to see more of, and learn more about, is a variation on the crow hop here. In the associated link, they show a style where the pitcher has his hands together, his feet leave the pitching plate and replant, his hands separate and he goes straight into the windmill. The base umpire is instructed to focus on the point of the feet at the time the hands separate for determining a crow hop.

What I think is not specified is the following situation which I see often in local NFHS ball: the pitcher has her pivot foot on the pitching plate, she separates her hands and moves her pitching arm back past the hip, her pivot foot drags forward. Then, as her arm start moving forward into the windmill, she replants her pivot foot and pushes off from that new spot several feet closer to the batter.

My previous understanding of the second situation was that it too was a crow hop. With my new understanding that for a crow hop it "only matters" where the pivot foot is at the time the hands separate, I am now calling it differently than I have over the last x years. I would just like further confirmation that I am understanding it correctly.

Any thoughts?

'
hmnmm that sound crow hoppish to me, I wish you could find a video showing what you mean. I've never heard it phrased that way.

I would also like to be able to see a video of what you are describing. But, from what I am picturing from your post, this sounds like a replant, and hence an IP.

He's describing the drag off the plate and a second push-off in front of the plate. While technically perhaps not a crow hop, it is still illegal.

To summarize my longer post above, the difference is basically:

1. hands together on pitching plate... drag or hop... replant... hands come apart.

- or -

2. hands come apart on pitching plate... drag or hop.... replant.... pitching motion continues.

In #1, the video and books this year specify that this is a crow hop. In #2, since the hands come apart while still on the pitching plate, the video infers that this is not a crow hop, even though I have always previously thought it was.

Why wouldn't that be a crow hop?

Thats what I'm wondering.. even his last post.. crow hop. I would like to know where he is hearing this and what he means though.

It IS a crow hop, according to every definition in NFHS and ASA. This is a case where WMB has influenced with his PERSONAL definition of a crow hop, despite that it differs from the definition and the rule.

For the record, the definition of a crow hop NEVER states ANYTHING about the hands, either together or separated. The act of replanting and pushing from any place other than the pitching plate, before or after, whether stepping, sliding, or leaping, STILL meets the definition of a crow hop. It may ALSO violate other sections of the pitching rule, but it STILL is a crow hop.

The definition is exactly what its states. All of it, not just the narrow interpretation of individuals.

In fairness to WMB, I would not characterize this as a PERSONAL or INDIVIDUAL interpretation.

The "before the hands separate" crow hop guideline appears in both the ASA and FED interpretational materials.

I dont follow this... now I'm trying (for once!) not to jump on this issue to quick..

This is confusing the wording and basically saying "since the pitch doesnt start until the hands are separated (after bringing them together), she can bounce all around until her hands DO separate.

negative on that. You cannot do that. You have preliminary, start of pitch, and delivery. Each category is separate and distinct. If during her motion to deliver the ball, she crow hops/steps/jumps/leaps/hops, that is illegal. If she has an odd delivery technique which some how blends the 3 and is a legal delivery technique, that doesnt make it suddenly legal to crow hop/leap/step etc.

I agree with you; it is not a crow hop (based on the hands not separated definition). But it is illegal based on NFHS 6.2.C and ASA 6.3.J: "Pushing off from any place other than the pitcher's plate is illegal."

Likewise, picking up the pivot foot and replanting it on the plate is not a crow hop (crow hop is replanted in front of the plate), nor does it violate 6.2.C or 6.3.J. But it is still illegal. ASA calls that a "rocking motion" (6.3 H & I), NFHS considers it a step, then when the stride foot "steps" you are illegal because you are only allowed one step.

So if you move that pivot foot around, there are four distinct rules that can be violated - crow hop, step (or rocking), pushing off, and legal drag (or leap). Most umpires, if they are going to make a call, will call any of the first three violations a "crow hop." That's OK, as long as it makes it easy for them to understand, and nobody else knows the difference. Technically they may be wrong, but it is better to call the IP than to let it go as too many umpires are doing.

WMB

My, oh my. You are so sure of yourself; so arrogant in your interpretation of everything holy in softball rules that you have to demean anyone that has the audacity to challenge your supreme position.

So - here is your challenge for today.

ASA Mens FP. Pitcher takes big leap off plate, toes on pivot foot down. Hands separated, windmill has started. Pivot foot replants 3' in front of plate. Pushes, drags, or otherwise moves away from replant point forward towards batter.

CROW HOP? ? ?

WMB

I dunno man, everythings starting to sound like a crow hop.

In our mens we dont call crow hop anyway.

In pitches like you describe the runners ask to run on the replant, instead of release.. kinda funny.

No challenge at all. The rule is clear. Drags, no. Otherwise moves away, no. Pushes, absolutely.

As you consistently turn this into a long and special diatribe, I will answer one time, and reference only the definition, rules, and rules supplements. No interpretation, no arrogance; read them and follow them. The rules have changed over time, so a historical recital is misleading, inaccurate, and immaterial. The rule is the rule, with no contradiction anywhere official.

ASA Definition: CROW HOP: Defined as the act of a pitcher who steps, hops or drags off the front of the pitcher's plate, replants the pivot foot, thereby establishing a second impetus (or starting point), pushes off from the newly established starting point and completes the delivery.

NFHS Definition: A crow hop is the replant of the pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch.

NCAA Definition: Crow Hop: An illegal act in which the pitcher's rear (pivot) foot leaves the pitcher's plate and recontacts the ground before the release of the pitch.

NCAA Rule 10.4.d.2: No crow hopping is allowed. The pitcher may not replant, gain a second starting point and push off her pivot foot. Once having lost contact with the pitcher's plate, the pivot foot may trail on the ground but may not bear weight again until the pitch is released.

ASA RS 40. F. "Pushing off from a spot other than the pitcher's plate is considered a crow hop and illegal.

1. A CROW HOP is defined as a replant of the pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch. This can be done by (1) sliding the foot in front, but not in contact with, the pitcher's plate; (2) lifting the pivot foot and stepping forward; or (3) jumping forward from the pitcher's plate with the pivot foot prior to starting the pitch.

STOP!! All of these are crow hops. It may be a step, but it is a crow hop. It may be slide, but it is a crow hop. It may be a leap (and, in MEN'S FP, the leap portion may be legal), but it a crow hop. IF THE PITCHER REPLANTS AND PUSHES FROM ANY SPOT OTHER THAN THE PITCHER'S PLATE, IT IS A CROW HOP!!

There is more text. Some points out that umpires should look at the pivot foot when the hands separate, because if the foot is already off the pitcher's plate, IT IS A CROW HOP. Nothing says, will say, or ever meant that if the hands separated sooner than the replant and push from a spot other than the pitcher's plate that it is NOT a crow hop. Because, that is a crow hop. By the definitions, and the Rule Supplement. Everywhere. Every rule set. It says so.

WMB, I have great respect for you in many areas. You are a leader in the umpire community. This is one area where you have created your own interpretation that is completely outside the actual text of every major rule set, and because you are respected, many umpires believe you. Please, stop preaching that to umpires. You want your pitchers to close their hips by bearing weight; NCAA rule is clear that they cannot. You want umpires to ignore the second push; the rule says we cannot. To call the pitch according to the rules, that is an illegal pitch, because it is a crow hop.

It may, as you have often pointed out, also violate other rules sections. Okay, I get that, too. But it is a crow hop. Telling anyone, umpires, coaches, or pitching students that it isn't a crow hop is wrong, and when they hear only "isn't a crow hop", they hear "it is a legal pitch". It isn't.

It isn't the rule. Read the rule.

And don't blame me in a personal way for making an equally determined statement that you are wrong in what you are saying, and misleading countless others.

Ok I am going to be the jerk again....WHO CARES?? Pitches fall into two catagories legal and illegal. Why do we have to seperate them any farther. I know it is fun and everyone likes to be right and get mad when they are wrong....but on the field call it illegal and describe in 5-10 words why it was illegal and don't use crow hop or leap in any of your descriptions. To me it is just going to start a long discussion about these definations that might not even be able to get cleared up by reading the book....so use what is in the book, coach she replanted prior to releasing the pitch. That is illegal and it can be found in the rule book, no doubt. Or coach her foot came off the ground as she pushed away from the pitching plate. (Leap) but my wording can be found in the book no chance of taking away from the pertinent information (illegal pitch is correct call) by adding the chance of an arguement of whether or not I am correct in the variation of illegal pitch it was. Or even worse lets say WMB and Altumpsteve are on the same field one at 1st and 1 at 3rd....in a rotated position WMB calls the pitcher illegal and says "she leaped" then in the next couple plays they are in a rotated position and AUS calls the same pitcher same mechanic a crow hop. Boy won't that be a fun discussion.

Agian I have said in on another board, to me it is vitially critical that we understand every aspect of an illegal pitch what made it illegal and how to explain it to a coach, but we don't need to belittle each other and "fight" about what to name the pitch....it has a name illegal!!! no reason several pitches can't have the same name...I am not the only Dave in the world!!:D

Speaking ASA

People care because there is information being used in the NFHS clinics that is being repeated here and being taken as gospel. The status of the hands is irrelevant to an illegal pitch involving a leap or crow hop.

In the Fed clinic I attended, it was used as an indication a crow hop has occured. Personally, I believe it is a weak indicator as those pitchers who work toward effecting the crow hop are usually separate at the time of the second push.

And ASA offers the exact same guideline in their rule book, under the "Crow Hop" paragraph in R/S #40. So it's not just an NFHS thing!

I understand it CAN be an indicator, but it really isn't relative to the call which is what I was hearing at this clinic. Watch some of the top pitchers. "When" they replant off the drag (and it can be done, see Cat Osterman), the ball is in the pitching hand alone, often at twelve o'clock.

I believe this "tell" is based more on the pitcher that slides the pivot foot forward off the pitcher's plate prior to begining the pitch.

My point is that just because the hands are separated does not make the pitch legal.

That is true, it can be a leap, or replant!! Starting a pitch somewhere other than the pitching plate is a crow hop, pitch starts when hands are seperated so if hands are seperated can't be a crow hop. Point is they are all illegal, just call illegal then explain why....

I do not disagree at all with that point.

My personal opinion is that the hand positions should be irrelevent. It is the foot position that should be focused on.

Both ASA and NFHS offer interpretations contrary to my personal opinion. And they're the boss! :D

Regardless of the hand position, a pitch can, of course, be illegal for a variety of other reasons. The interpretive material suggests that those "other reasons" just don't technically fall under the definition of "crow hop".

That is a rather dumb statement to make. I have the advantage of historical perspective and am able to see the development of rules over a long period of time, thus seeing the rationale (or errors) that contribute to today's text. But you do not have that capability, so rather that admitting it, you denigrate it and declare it to be worthless.

Challenge: In ASA play when a B-R fails to reach 1B and instead enters the dugout, do you call dead ball, declare the B-R out for interference, and return all runners? Same for NFHS, except it is not called interference. However, in a rulebook not affected by a historical typo, the ball is live and runners can advance with liability to be put out in NCAA play.


WHY ISN'T THAT A LEAP? Is a leap also a crow hop? Or is a crow hop also a leap? What the hell do you call?

Oh, I see - it won't be a leap if the stride foot is still on the ground. If the stride foot is still on the ground, then this crow hop occurred at the beginning of the pitch. Oh, yes, that is what WMB keeps trying to say.

OK, you're trying to support your position that a crow hop can occur at the end of a legal drag. So why don't you quote the other rule (10.4.4) which states that " the rear, pivot foot must stay in contact with the ground without creating a second push-off point before the stride foot lands."

Fact: the stride foot lands before the pitch is released. For most pitchers the ball will be between 12:00 and 3:00 when the stride foot lands.

That is the point that I have consistently made for years; and what I taught as a pitching coach. Once the stride foot lands, you have established the furthermost point the body can travel. Using the pivot foot to help close the hips and propel the body "tall" gains the pitcher no further distance (or advantage) and is legal.

Again from a historical perspective: in 1991 ASA created the crow hop and specifically stated that once the stride foot landed, any action of the pivot foot was legal. And in 2007, the NFHS Softball Guide stated "The base umpire must concentrate on the pitcher's pivot foot but must not confuse the stabbing of the pivot foot in the ground, as she completes her legal pitching delivery with her stride foot forward - with an illegal replant that occurs before the stride foot passes the pivot foot.


I suppose that you would like me to believe that a pitcher, flying through the air, with her stride foot up around her waist and pivot foot dragging behind her, can somehow force her body lower to the earth, buckle the back leg, and then push-off and propel the body further through the air before the stride foot sets down. If that really happens, then it sure would be illegal. (Know what - if she could do this once, she could do it multiple times; crow hopping all the way to home plate before finally setting the stride foot down!)

So tell us how many times you have seen, and called that in NCAA play? Or anywhere? And don't bring up Cat - cause she is legal.

Which brings me to the final paragraph in the 2007 NFHS Guide: "As a reminder, pitchers work long and hard to perfect their skills. It is imperative to realize that most complaints are lodged against good pitchers, and most good pitchers pitch within the rules."


An interesting piece of text. The rule simply states that pushing off from a spot other than the pitcher's plate is illegal. That rule actually precedes the ASA invention of the crow hop. But some text writer decided to add a couple extra words when the first POE was written. And it is still there today, even though the referenced rule does not support it.

Enough! Respond if you wish, but I am done!

WMB

I brought up Cat and she has not always been legal. I assume more so in college than now, but she really perfected the ability to get a second push off the toes of her pivot foot while fully open and extended. Or it is totally accidental, but that doesn't make it legal.

I do not think you will see it at full speed. I only noticed it during a Big XII (?) playoff game on TV a few years ago. They ran her delivery in slow motion for the talking head to analize for the viewing audience. Fully extended and just before she started to bring the ball down, there was a spray of dirt that was kicked out because she got her toe down and dug in. I only noticed that because they replayed it a few times and I had the opportunity to really get a good look at the slo-mo. Maybe they just picked the wrong pitch to tape, but it was clear as day when you knew what to watch.

So...if we are told by folks who matter in both ASA and NFHS that basically we are to disregard the action of the feet (except for a leap) after the hands come apart...

No, but that was my point originally. This "tip" is being taken as part of all aspects of what is termed a "crow hop". I believe it is only meant as an indicator when the pitcher moves the pivot foot off the PP towards the batter prior to the start of the pitch (separation of hands).

I believe the way it is being presented doesn't make that distinction at times.

I must be among the minority, but I feel it is an excellent point, as is your other point here. If the correct distinction is made when presenting it, we can have more consistent and proper application of the rule.

Fortunately, we were recently blessed with a regional clinic in Region 15 which included Wild Bill, Malcolm, JJ and Kevin...and while I would never speak for them, they presented it with proper distinction.