|
NCAA considers changing IP penalty
Interesting article.
Posted under Latest News at NCAA.org Softball rules panel considers changing illegal-pitch penalty By Greg Johnson NCAA.org The NCAA Softball Rules Committee used its annual meeting last month to discuss the possibly changing the penalties for illegal pitches. The issue was in the limelight for most of the season but attracted even greater attention at the 2010 Women's College World Series when numerous illegal-pitch violations were called. Pitchers are not allowed to leap (have both feet off the ground) while delivering [a] pitch-and greater enforcement of the longstanding rule was apparent at all three softball national championships. Currently, when an illegal pitch is called, a ball is called on the batter and any base runners advance one base. That is consistent among softball rules for international, collegiate, and recreational play. The committee discussed lessening the penalty, though, by allowing base runners to advance only after the team's fifth illegal pitch of the game. The change could have unattended consequences, however, since the "leap" is only one of several ways a pitch can be ruled illegal. "There was some concern that awarding a ball on the count and allowing a base to the runners was too much of a game changing effect," said Ken Eriksen, committee chair and softball coach at South Florida. Since the WCWS is the pinnacle of the collegiate game-and the most widely publicized games because of ESPN's extensive coverage-the issue spawned varied opinions, from changing the penalty to ramping up enforcement and making that enforcement more consistent throughout the regular season. "In certain parts of the country, the rule was called consistently," said Eriksen, who is an assistant coach for Team USA, which one its seventh straight world championship last week. 'We've given everyone an opportunity to change and we've told the coaches that it is time to change. But as it turned out, it appeared to come down heavier because people saw it called in the Women's College World Series. "The bottom line is at all levels, we need to do a better job of teaching pitchers the correct mechanics." |
I was told by my NFHS contacts that a similar discussion was held in June by the NFHS Softball Rules Committee. The considerations suggested that if the illegal pitch penalty was simply a ball on the batter, and no awarded bases to the baserunner(s), then 1) it would be a more appropriate penalty, since the baserunners were not deceived (compared to a baseball balk) and should not be rewarded by the pitcher's mistake, and 2) it might be called more regularly and consistently by umpires that might currently hesitate, afraid to make impact calls.
I wasn't advised how close that may have come to passing as a rule change; was simply advised it was discussed at substantial length. |
Quote:
Question is, NCAA is now in the middle of a two-year rule book period, so can they change during an off-year? I have no problem changing the effect, but if an IP is an IP the first time out, what makes "5" a magic number? How about just a ball on the batter, and upon the fifth called, the HC is ejected and on the 10th the game is forfeited? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I reminded my contact that similar "logic" was used years ago when NFHS realized their "automatic appeal" (umpires were to call out runners that left early on a caught fly ball or missed a base, without an appeal being made) was being ignored by a large number of umpires who refused to notice unless it was a gross miss. Those umpires (the ones that would admit it) theorized that it wasn't their responsibility to enforce a rule they didn't agree with, because 1) it should be an appeal by the defense, even if the NFHS rules said it wasn't, and 2) it would be an "impact call". The nonenforcement forced NFHS to make it an appeal again, as the only means to get any consistency. |
Quote:
|
I agree with just a ball on the batter. It's not a balk where the pitcher is trying to decieve runner. I also agree with Irish,what makes 5 the number? Call them until they realize it's not going to be tolerated and a violation of the rules. If they want it changed let them duke it out with NCAA NFHS ASA.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Changing the penalty to just a ball on the batter works for me. As long as the coaches know that they can expect more IPs called per game.
Changing the pitching rule would be a better option where the leap is concerned. Specifically stating that a pitcher can leap as long as they aren't higher than the top of the pitcher's plate would help. The plate, by rule, is supposed to be flush with the surrounding ground anyway. I think some of the air umpires see below the feet is due to the raised plate. So are the pitchers, the fields, or both violating the rule book? Personally, I like the ISF rules concerning the feet. |
Hmm....rather than change the penalty, why not change the rule? If they are not wanting the IP called, then allow the leap, the crow-hop and stepping outside the 24 inch lane. Seems to me that would be easier!
Either that, or just eliminate the base award altogether, with no magic number for the base award to kick in. Gotta admit, though, I like Mike's idea of tossing the coach and forfeiting the game if it continues! :cool: |
I know how to stop it. 4 base award, 1st offense. I guarantee you the pitchers stop leaping then.
|
Quote:
I disagree with changing the penalty to just a ball to the batter. Answer this question: What would be the largest number of consecutive IPs thrown by a pitcher before a run scores? Under current rules, the answer is six, the run scores on the seventh. If the penalty is a ball only, the answer would be 15. How many chances does the pitcher need to get it right? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
I have been an advocate of making women's and JO softball pitching rules more in line with men's. This would go a long way in eliminating much of the controversy. However, if a coach driven rule set like NCAA's is going to try to water down the IP rule, then they should just abolish it as it is written altogether. Allow the leap. Allow a step outside of the 24 inch lane. (Oh...but wait. That would ruin those cute little lines the coaches demanded just a couple of years ago.) Allow anything that doesn't technically deceive the batter. That, or leave things as they are and allow us to enforce the rule without a lot of media controversy when it is done. IMO, this past year, there were many IP's that could have been called that weren't. While I cannot speak for the rest of the country, it appeared that around here NCAA officials were doing a good job of focusing on the IP as per the SUIP directive. Now that the coaches have started to realize just how often their pitcher's are illegal, they once again want to change the rule. I find it odd that one rule can cause such controversy. |
Quote:
|
I don't see them changing it. They don't want good pitching in the game. They want good hitting. They've already moved the pitchers back, not they've done it for the younger levels of play. Giving any advantage to the pitcher does not fit into the direction they have pushed this sport to progress.
|
I'd favor eliminating the leap as an illegal act. If the men are allowed to leap, the women should be as well.
I'm on the fence about stepping outside the 24" width. Maybe a 30" PP could allow some leeway. Crowhop should remain an infraction as far as I'm concerned. I can live either way with a base award. If it's the rule, call it. I don't golf, but saw recently where someone "grounded his club" and got a penalty. Seemed overly harsh to me, but again I don't play and don't know all those rules. But if it's a rule, and violated, enforce the penalty. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Should it have been that way to start? No, but it is no different than when NFHS changed their OBS rules and appeal procedures. Rant on! Look what happened this year when the umpires did start to call the IPs and I'll bet you my last dollar that all still were not called. The result was quite positive in many areas because most pitchers easily adjusted. In the televised regionals, the majority of pitchers were legal and still performed well. I don't hesitate in my belief that the "big time" NCAA coaches were putting on a show to attempt to intimiate officials and umpires. It may have worked. Why is it the majority of pitchers could stay legal, and the few who could not seem to be carrying the attention? Did you hear the coaches' complaints? I didn't hear or read of one who claimed the umpires were wrong in their assessment of the pitch, but that they were actually calling it. But the "show" was unbelievable. In interviews, coaches and pitchers were whining about why "all of a sudden" these are called when they weren't all season. What? They expect people to buy that when published game statistics showed many of these comments to be outright lies. The sorry part is that fans suck this **** right up in spite of the facts and, of course, everyone is wrong, but those poor girls on their favorite team. Even the TH noted how illegal some pitchers were, but bemoaned the fact that the umpires were enforcing the rules. Wow, people employed to officiate a game to maintain a level playing field actually enforcing the predetermined game rules, what a concept! Rant off! Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:04pm. |