Leap, Crow Hop vs replant

[DaveASA/FED]

I said I was going to start a new thread so here it is

"Ok I’m going to start another thread about this because I know this will get things going. A crow hop is starting the pitch from somewhere other than the pitching plate. Pitcher has hands together and leaps, drags or steps forward then starts their pitch (separates their hands). This is starting the pitch from somewhere other than the pitching plate. Usually, but not always, when they reach this new starting point they replant and push off from this point in front of the pitching plate as they start the pitch. A leap is just that both feet are airborne at the same time. Usually when they land they are already well into the windup and deliver the pitch shortly after they land. There is not usually any replant or push off after they land, just the force of them being airborne and driving toward the batter is the advantage."

One more topic on the replant. I have heard some discussion about the pitcher that closes her hip being called for a replant. I would like to hear others comments on this and what rule references you might use if you would call it illegal.

Delivery discription: All prelims are legal, right handed F1 then steps out drags away opening hips toward 3rd baseline, as ball is coming downward and she is delivering pitch she pushes with the pivot foot bringing her right leg forward as she closes her hips bringing her body square to home plate.

[JefferMC]

Never hurts to start with the rule book:

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 2

SECTION 16 CROW HOP
A crow hop is the replant of the pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch.

SECTION 33 LEAP
A leap is when both feet are airborne by the pitcher prior to delivering the pitch.

However, neither of these terms is actually in the Illegal Pitch rule. What it says is (6.2c)

Originally Posted by NFHS Rule 6.2c

the pivot foot may remain in contact with or may push off and drag away
from the pitching plate prior to the front foot touching the ground, as long
as the pivot foot remains in contact with the ground and within the 24-inch
length. Pushing off with the pivot foot from a place other than the pitcher’s
plate is illegal.

Given that 6.2c doesn't use the terms crow hop, replant or leap, I would prefer not to use any of those terms when discussing what his pitcher did or did not do while pitching that led to having an IP called on her.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

However, neither of these terms is actually in the Illegal Pitch rule. What it says is (6.2c)

Is nothing. I cannot find a 6.2c in NFHS Rule Book

Given that 6.2c doesn't use the terms crow hop, replant or leap, I would prefer not to use any of those terms when discussing what his pitcher did or did not do while pitching that led to having an IP called on her.

Okay, lets start with word play. Rule 6 does not include an "Illegal Pitch" article, so maybe we shouldn't use the term "illegal pitch", either?

Maybe because the rules are based on positive/allowance and "illegal pitch" is the penalty. And the terms "leap" and "crow hop" are referenced in the Umpire Manual, and "crow hop" in the Case Book, so I would think using the terms would be acceptable.

Okay, now that the games out of the way, I have heard different things umpires watch for to make such a determination of a replant. One of my favorites is watching the back leg and if it isn't extended straight from the push, she must have replanted. While there can be some truth to that being an indicator, I don't think it is any more absolute than believing a replant cannot be available if the pivot toe is pointing down.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Is nothing. I cannot find a 6.2c in NFHS Rule Book

Sorry, my bad: 6.1.2c (Rule 6 Section 1 Article 2, c.). I dropped the section number by accident.

Okay, lets start with word play. Rule 6 does not include an "Illegal Pitch" article, so maybe we shouldn't use the term "illegal pitch", either?

Yes, Rule 6 does include "Illegal Pitch". 6.1.1 Penalty: An illegal pitch is called.

aybe because the rules are based on positive/allowance and "illegal pitch" is the penalty. And the terms "leap" and "crow hop" are referenced in the Umpire Manual, and "crow hop" in the Case Book, so I would think using the terms would be acceptable.

Sure, they're acceptable terms, as they do have rule book definitions. The reason I would avoid them is because by avoiding them you avoid the issue that someone wants to argue whether something is a "crow hop" or a "leap" when that matters not. It seems to me it simplifies life to go to the simple statements as written in the rule (i.e. that the pivot foot must stay on the ground and the pitcher may not push off from anything but the pitchers plate) and not use terms that so many have misused and misunderstand.

The fact that they're used in the Umpire's Manual or Case Book means nothing to a coach, because those are books he's not even really SUPPOSED to have read, vs. the one he should have read but hasn't.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

...It seems to me it simplifies life to go to the simple statements as written in the rule (i.e. that the pivot foot must stay on the ground and the pitcher may not push off from anything but the pitchers plate) and not use terms that so many have misused and misunderstand...

I will use the proper terms, but I will use the simplest-to-explain thing the pitcher is doing that is illegal. IMO, the leap is the easiest to explain (and understand), and many times (not all) a pitcher who is crow hopping or replanting is also leaping. So, if the coach asks what she is doing wrong, "She's leaping, coach."

Unlike Rita, I avoid the word "replant" since that one (by my experience) is difficult to explain and ends up with coaches wanting to look at foot marks in the dirt, which actually mean nothing at all. IOW, we need to see the IP to call it; examining forensic evidence is useless.

JMO.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by JefferMC

Yes, Rule 6 does include "Illegal Pitch". 6.1.1 Penalty: An illegal pitch is called.

Reread, I said there was no Article (Paragraph). Didn't say it was not used.

Sure, they're acceptable terms, as they do have rule book definitions. The reason I would avoid them is because by avoiding them you avoid the issue that someone wants to argue whether something is a "crow hop" or a "leap" when that matters not. It seems to me it simplifies life to go to the simple statements as written in the rule (i.e. that the pivot foot must stay on the ground and the pitcher may not push off from anything but the pitchers plate) and not use terms that so many have misused and misunderstand.

I agree with the explanation, but I can guarantee you that if a coach rightfully requests whether the IP was a "crow hop" or "leap", you need to discern one from the other. That it "matters not" isn't going to go far and may be quite detrimental.

The fact that they're used in the Umpire's Manual or Case Book means nothing to a coach, because those are books he's not even really SUPPOSED to have read, vs. the one he should have read but hasn't.

I think you really underestimate some coaches and their willingness to at least try and learn. And what makes you think these publications are not available to coaches? All three publications umpires receive are available on-line to members.

[JefferMC]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree with the explanation, but I can guarantee you that if a coach rightfully requests whether the IP was a "crow hop" or "leap", you need to discern one from the other. That it "matters not" isn't going to go far and may be quite detrimental.

Okay, I'll give you that if the coach asks using those terms, then it is best to reply using those terms. However, if the question is "what did she do wrong," I'm not going to be the first to set foot down that road.

I think you really underestimate some coaches and their willingness to at least try and learn. And what makes you think these publications are not available to coaches? All three publications umpires receive are available on-line to members.

Granted, there are the coaches that know what "B" and "C" position are and when you're supposed to be there. However, when I said "not even really SUPPOSED to have read," I didn't mean to imply that he shouldn't have it available if he wants it. Instead I was simply trying to say that he's part of the intended audience for the rule book, but not necessarily the other two.