Pitcher's Stride "Within" the 24" Plate

[BretMan]

Question about the pitcher's forward stride being "within" the 24" length of the pitcher's plate.

NFHS rules state that the stride must be "within, or partially within" the 24" length of the pitcher's plate. They even have that nifty diagram to illustrate foot placement, which shows the stride foot touching the the (imaginary) line and being legal.

ASA rules state only that the stride foot must be "within" (not "partially within") the 24" length.

Does the ASA interpretation of "within" match the NFHS, or must the foot be fully within the line without touching it?

[charliej47]

I was told that within meant she could be on the line the same as NFHS

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Question about the pitcher's forward stride being "within" the 24" length of the pitcher's plate.

NFHS rules state that the stride must be "within, or partially within" the 24" length of the pitcher's plate. They even have that nifty diagram to illustrate foot placement, which shows the stride foot touching the the (imaginary) line and being legal.

ASA rules state only that the stride foot must be "within" (not "partially within") the 24" length.

Does the ASA interpretation of "within" match the NFHS, or must the foot be fully within the line without touching it?

Same philosophy on all lines, as best I can tell. Consider the batter's box as an example. As a starting position, "within" means completely inside, with the entire line being part of the box. On the stride, "within" means not completely outside, with the entire line being part of the box.

Applied to the 24" length of the pitcher's plate, "within" while taking a signal requires the entire foot within (not hanging over the sides); on the stride, "within" means not completely outside that imaginary line.

In practical terms, that foot better be WAY outside for me to call that with a fastpitch that I have to call as ball or strike halfway home at the moment the foot touches down.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

...

In practical terms, that foot better be WAY outside for me to call that with a fastpitch that I have to call as ball or strike halfway home at the moment the foot touches down.

I agree. I had a game just last week where the pitcher was probably outside of the width with her stride foot. She was close enough that I was not able to be sure and watch the pitch. So, I'm sure the assignors heard about that one from the other coach.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Steve M

I agree. I had a game just last week where the pitcher was probably outside of the width with her stride foot. She was close enough that I was not able to be sure and watch the pitch. So, I'm sure the assignors heard about that one from the other coach.

Ya know, with all of the b itching and moaning I've heard over the years from coaches about illegal pitchers, I've never had one complaint about a pitcher being outside the width. I've made this call a few times, but it is rare. As noted, it is hard to see unless it is blatant.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Same philosophy on all lines, as best I can tell. Consider the batter's box as an example.

That was my understanding. The batter is still considered to be "within" the box when making contact with the pitch, as long as the foot is not entirely outside the box.

Another one: The pitcher, for purposes of the Look Back Rule, is considered "within" the circle as long as her feet are not entirely outside. They may be touching the lines and hanging over the edge.

My understanding has always been the same standard applied with regards to the stride being "within" the 24" length of the pitcher's plate- on the line is okay, entirely outside of it illegal.

The reason this came up was another umpire telling me my understanding was wrong. He was adamant that the foot had to be entirely within the 24" length.

[DaveASA/FED]

I believe this is different between different rule sets, so you both might have been right

[BretMan]

In my reseach to try and find a definitive answer, I looked at the "Rule Differences" document on the ASA website (the one that lists differences for ASA, NCAA and NFHS).

The document notes the difference for starting positions of the pitcher's feet, but does not list any differences for the stride foot after stepping forward.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

I believe this is different between different rule sets, so you both might have been right

If so, it is a difference without a distinction. Since no actual line is drawn on the field, I submit that any PU who is trying to determine if the pitchers foot is landing partly on the line or not has his priorities confused.

[SRW]

I got a batter moving and setting, & a catcher trying to give signals and get ready to catch the ball. I got a pitcher who might bring her hands together twice, might hold her hands together for more than 10 seconds, or might throw sidearm. I got a batter who better be in the box within 10 seconds, and a pitcher who better bring it within 20 seconds. I might have runners on base, potential steals, and possibly a bunt or slap to add to the situation. I might even have to watch and see if the batter put her foot on the ground outside the box when she made contact with the ball.

And on top of that, I have to watch the pitcher's foot and see where it lands.

That's pretty darn low on my priority list of things to watch. I'm only calling that if it's so darn obvious that Ray Charles notices.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by SRW

I got a batter moving and setting, & a catcher trying to gove signals and get ready to catch the ball. I got a pitcher who might bring her hands together twice, might hold her hands together for more than 10 seconds, or might throw sidearm. I got a batter who better be in the box within 10 seconds, and a pitcher who better bring it within 20 seconds. I might have runners on base, potential steals, and possibly a bunt or slap to add to the situation. I might even have to watch and see if the batter put her foot on the ground outside the box when she made contact with the ball.

And on top of that, I have to watch the pitcher's foot and see where it lands.

That's pretty darn low on my priority list of things to watch. I'm only calling that if it's so darn obvious that Ray Charles notices.

I understand, and agree. However, why do we view that violation of the rules less important than the other possible violations that we are looking for?

[argodad]

Originally Posted by SRW

I got a batter moving and setting, & a catcher trying to gove signals and get ready to catch the ball. I got a pitcher who might bring her hands together twice, might hold her hands together for more than 10 seconds, or might throw sidearm. I got a batter who better be in the box within 10 seconds, and a pitcher who better bring it within 20 seconds. I might have runners on base, potential steals, and possibly a bunt or slap to add to the situation. I might even have to watch and see if the batter put her foot on the ground outside the box when she made contact with the ball.

And on top of that, I have to watch the pitcher's foot and see where it lands.

That's pretty darn low on my priority list of things to watch. I'm only calling that if it's so darn obvious that Ray Charles notices.

Ray Charles was at our HS regional playoff game last night. We had an outside the 24" call AND a batter stepping on the plate while bunting. Our PU got them both -- and they were even obvious to me over in my position in the A slot. (The outside the 24" call was on a curve that would have been strike three. Pitcher blew her away with a rise on the next pitch.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by argodad

Ray Charles was at our HS regional playoff game last night. We had an outside the 24" call AND a batter stepping on the plate while bunting. Our PU got them both -- and they were even obvious to me over in my position in the A slot. (The outside the 24" call was on a curve that would have been strike three. Pitcher blew her away with a rise on the next pitch.)

I know certain folks talk about the stepping on the plate also being low on the priority list, but I've never seen that much of a problem of a PU seeing a batter on the plate.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MNBlue

I understand, and agree. However, why do we view that violation of the rules less important than the other possible violations that we are looking for?

Because we have to work in priorities. Here is a link to an excellent article written by Emily Alexander on working in priorities.

The Dilemma of Priorities

Number 5 in the article is the situation discussed in this thread.

[Steve M]

Andy,
Terriffic article. And your response to MN was what I was going to say - but I just got back from today's game.
The rain delay in today's game sure beat the devil out of some of the snow delays I've seen.