Bret,
I suspect that rather than being called for IP because of where she took her signal, she was inviolation of the "10-10-5 rule" and just had a ball added to the count.

Works for me too. Get the answer straight from the boss.
BTW...you're lucky Bret, I sent her a question two weeks ago, got a form type e-mail confirmation that it was received....but still waiting for the answer to my question.
KJ

Just the highlighted part of the comment will screw up people. To start, no one, NO ONE, but the pitcher knows exactly where she is getting her signal which it is not required, so I have no idea why people insist on including it in an explanation of an interpretation.

I understand why it may be necessary to use in the rules for the purpose of a point of reference, but even noting a "signal" is to be received or taken at any point just tends to confuse the point of the rule.

You would think a comment as plain and simple as, "the pitcher must come to an obvious and deliberate stop while on the pitcher's plate with their hands separated" prior to beginning the pitch.

F.Y.I., I'm not just referring to the NCAA here, but all rule sets.

There's your answer as to why none of the rule sets do it.....it's too plain, too simple, and makes too much common sense.

Taking a signal or simulate taking a signal would also require that the pitcher be looking in at the catcher. So merely coming to an obvious and deliberate stop alone would not satisfy the requirements of the current rule. (What if the pitcher steps on, hands apart, motionless, but looking at the third baseman then brings her hands together to begin the pitch?)

Is the purpose of the rule to regulate where the pitcher looks or is it to avoid a quick pitch?

Same thing I said!!:D

You're picking nits here...with everything we are required by NCAA mechanics to watch as a crew regarding IP's, why would we make the choice to focus on this one aspect of the Pitching Procedure (10.2) section of the Pitching rule?
IMO....I wouldn't.
My mental checklist as she comes up to the pitcher's plate (for legality) are hand (apart), feet, ball at side or front, [B]"taking a signal"[/B] from the catcher, hands (together/touch and in my vision), hands separating as the pitch starts.
Was she looking at the catcher when she was "taking the signal"? Yes. I saw her glance at the catcher as she was turing her head to look at her 3rd baseman.

Sorry. My intended point was missed.
The rule currently requires the pitcher to take the signal or simulate taking the signal while on the pitcher's plate. The point I was attempting to make is changing the rule to require the pitcher to "come to an obvious and deliberate stop while on the pitcher's plate with their hands separated" as Irish suggested is not a less-wordy and clearer representation of the current rule because the requirements of the two rules are not precisely the same.
Would it be better to have this be the wording of the rule? Absolutely! Would it be the same as what is in place currently? No.

Wasn't that HIS point? The current rule mentions taking signals as a proxy for coming to a pause, not to regulate the taking of the signal per se.

Wasn't I told in a different thread on this board that assuming the intentions of the rules writers is a slippery slope?? :confused: :D

If, indeed, looking in for a signal (real or otherwise) is a proxy for a pause, then I believe we all agree. But is it possible that the signal requirement is in there to add one more requirement to the mix?

Merely mandating a pause doesn't mean the pitcher would ever have to make eye contact toward the catcher until, potentially, well after she has begun the pitch. By mandating taking the signal (real or otherwise), there is an understood requirement that the pitcher must look in toward the catcher in addtion to pausing. That very well could be the intention of the rules writers.

Actually, I do see your point. OTOH, if you want to be that specific, coaches should be forbidden to give the pitchers signals prior to the pitch. :rolleyes:

Yes, that is ridiculous, but if you insist on being specific.......:D

Interesting letter concerning the IPs called:

http://ftp.nfca.org/forms/ncaapitching.pdf

A bulletin to umpires titled Important Update Concerning Illegal Pitches was posted earlier today on the NCAA/SUIP Central Hub website. Umpires were advised by Kathy Strahm of the memo she and Dee sent to coaches, AD's and coordinators that Mike provided a link to in his post.

Two paragraphs in the SUIP bulletin that further address the manner in which the NCAA wants umpires to handle IP calls and adds some additional context to this memo:

"Umpires are to call rules violations, including illegal pitches, when they occur. Umpires are to approach the pitch as being delivered legally, until and unless the pitcher engages in movement not in compliance with the rules. This approach is similar to the way umpires view all pitches as strikes until they become balls. Again, pitchers are to receive the benefit of the doubt if there is any question of legality."

"Umpires should not talk with players at all, unless necessary to administer the games. When explaining illegal pitch calls to coaches, explain using the terminology of the rule. All rules should be enforced accurately and consistently without excuses-not because the SUIP asks you to, not because you want a post season assignment. The only justification for calling illegal pitches and other rules violations is because it is the right and correct ruling."

Why? This is not in violation nor am I contending that it is.