Question for the NCAA Guys RE: Illegal Pitch
 

This came up in a discussion with a parent of an NCAA pitcher. His daughter was recently called for an illegal pitch because she took a signal from the catcher before stepping on the pitcher's plate.

I know this is perfectly fine in ASA/NFHS ball, so long as the pitcher subsequently takes, or simulates taking, a signal once she does step on the plate. I also understand the intent of the rule is to have the pitcher pause before delivering the pitch, to prevent a quick pitch. And, I know that this rule is often misinterpreted to mean that the pitcher is forbidden from taking a signal anywhere except while on the plate.

The question is this: Is the NCAA rule interpreted exactly the same as for ASA/NFHS? A reading of their rule doesn't make me think it would be. But that doesn't eliminate the possibility that their umpires have been instructed otherwise.

For those of you that don't have access to the rule:

Pitching Procedure
10.2 Taking the Signal from the Catcher

10.2.1 Before starting a pitch, the pitcher must comply with the following:

10.2.1.1 Both feet must be on the ground in contact with the pitcher’s
plate and a portion of the pivot foot must be on the top surface of
the pitcher’s plate. Both feet must be within the 24-inch length of the
pitcher’s plate.

10.2.1.2 Hands must be separated.

10.2.1.3 The ball must be held and remain in one hand, either bare or
gloved.

Notes:
1. Rolling (not tossing) the ball is legal as long as contact is maintained with the
hand including the wrist.
2. A ball dropped by the pitcher before her hands have come together and then
separated shall be live and base runner(s) may advance with liability to be put
out.

10.2.1.4 The ball may be held in front of, at the side of or behind the body.

10.2.2 While in this position, the pitcher must take (or simulate taking) a signal
from the catcher.

EFFECT (10.2.1 to 10.2.2)—Illegal pitch. (See Rule 10.8)


I have been told to enforce the rules as written, without discretion. So, to answer your question, no I haven't been instructed otherwise. So, the pitcher you were dicussing should have been called for an IP.

Here is the rule:

Now, what I am wondering is did dad just think that she was nailed for the IP for taking a signal off of the pitching plate, when in fact she was actually nailed for the failure to take, or simulate taking the signal from the pitching plate? Personally, I don't care when a catcher gets her signal, or from whom, as long as she simulates getting one while on the pitching plate.

I considered that possibility- that the parent had misunderstood why the IP was called. But he was adamant that his kid had paused while actually on the plate and that the umpire specifically told the coach that the IP was called "for taking the signal from behind the plate".

I have access to the NCAA rules and had read them before posting. I understand that their rule says the pitcher can simulate taking a signal while on the plate. So, there really isn't any requirement for the pitcher to take any signal at all, only to pause. And there isn't any rule or penalty listed about taking one before stepping on the plate.

So far, we have one "for" and one "against" the IP for this one! :confused:

Where is the part that regulates what the pitcher may or may not do PRIOR to taking the pitcher's plate?

In the Florida Panhandle, we interpret the NCAA ruling as we do ASA and NFHS. As long as she complies with all of the parts of the pitching rule, nothing prevents her from getting a signal prior to stepping on the PP.

I think we do have UMPIRE ERROR here, if indeed the IP was .

Maybe the IP was called for:

"for taking 12 seconds to take the signal from behind the plate".

One more "against", if literally as stated, no such rule.

As described in the original question, which rule was broken?

"...for taking the signal from behind the plate."

I wasn't there and I trust that what the PU called is what he believes happened.

True, F1 can take or simulate the taking of a sign on the pitcher's plate, but apparently that isn't what happened based on the call and the explanation.

Why are we believing daddy's version when we don't have the PU's version?

I'm not really asking anyone to believe one version or the other. I already allowed for the fact that maybe something was "lost in the translation", since I was getting a second hand account of the call. I tried getting all the information I could and tried to make sure I had an accurate account of what happened before posting.

All that is really irrelevant to my question. The question is "Does NCAA interpret this the same as does ASA/NFHS?", not "Who's account should you believe?".

My question would be how does the umpire know from where she was taking a signal?

I don't care how it is interpreted, until the umpire can answer this question, s/he shouldn't be making such a call.

That's the point...
There is no rule aginst taking a signal from behind the plate...
If the umpire called that anytime BEFORE the pitcher's hands came together, he was dead wrong.
If he called it anythime after, he mis-stated the offense.

BRETMAN: to answer your question in a word: YES

While searching through the NCAA web site for an interpretation on this, I came across a "Ask the Expert" section, headed by one Dee Abrahamson. I sent her an email with this question, figuring that I probably wouldn't hear anything back. I was sure that the NCAA folks have better things to do with their time!

To my surprise, I received a reply this evening.

"You are absolutely correct...she can take as many signals as she wants BUT must take, or simulate taking, the last one once positioned on the pitcher's plate.
Hope you can pass that along to her.

Dee Abrahamson

Senior Associate Athletic Director/SWA
Northern Illinois University
Convocation Center Suite 200
NCAA Softball Secretary Rules Editor"

That works for me! :D

Same thing Emily said.

Paul

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.

Hang on. I'll go find you a sense of humor. :eek:

You referred to the pitcher facing the catcher taking signals or simulating taking the signal.

Well, if they are looking at the catcher, I guess they cannot be watching the coach for a signarl.:D

Beer time
 

:D:):eek:Isn't it about time for the discussion to shift towards beer?

Three Philosophers. Great brew.

Seconded.

Not my type of beer...

Lately, I've been enjoying Pilsner Urquell

Why not? It gets you hammered pretty quickly. :)

Don't like fruity beers... ;)

Fruity? It's about twice the alcohol content of most other beers off the shelf! :P

Perhaps, but too much cherry flavor for me. Like a beer with a Dr. Pepper chaser :cool:. I prefer uncontaminated :) ale.

Enjoyed a bottle of that in Bratislava, didn't know it is sold in the U.S. :)

Mid 70's - Used to drink it at a corner bar (Grace and Sheffield) in Chicago along with a great Salami sandwich......

Ran across it again at a new place here in FL.
I wasn't sure if it was good beer or just the memories... so I ordered it (this time with Barbecue) - still think it's a nice beer.


Now that I'm reminiscing about my Chicago days, I remember whenever one of us would go up to Wisconsin, the assignment was to bring back cases of Point beer.

Point Beer? Oh hurl...

Leinie's is much better.

Regarding Point Beer:
I'll take your word for it... I was so much younger then - and you know how we can be influenced by "exotic", hard to get, comodities.

Speaking of younger, that was only a few years past when I stopped drinking Piasano wine.... and going to WHO concerts.
Talk about hurl

If you want fruity, drink wine.

If you are defaming my Boone's, just stay on your side of the boarder.

I've tried and tried... Could never get drunk off of Boone's. Useless stuff.

Btw... Fixed it for you. :)

You take on boarders?

Nah, he repels them with poles.

BTW, Mr. Slick Boone, how are you doing with the IPs?

I've had one IP this year, and it was on an intentional walk. However, on Friday, the little one from on the other side of the border called 5.

You know, the big question is were they IPs?

All the coaches, players and fans are *****ing up a storm, but I have yet to hear one insist that it WASN'T an illegal pitch, just that they are not calling a violation which in the past may have been ignored by some.

Go figure.

Or were they IPA's? :D

Yuck!

IPA recipes were not developed for modern-day brewing.

While there is a modicum of truth in your final comment, I believe that many brewers have developed wonderful recipes to work with the techniques that we have to create some really fantastic brews. However, I personally am more of a fan of the American style pales, with the citrus notes that Cascade hops produce naturally.

Ahhh, the perfect blend of any of the "C" hops!! Columbus for bittering, Cascade for flavor and aroma...And while I could argue with the statement about IPAs and modern-day brewing, so far as hoppiness is concerned, there is nothing that beats a Stone Ruination!!!
http://www.websmileys.com/sm/drink/trink38.gif

Here is a nice article about the development of IPAs:

India Pale Ale