You have to wonder how someone could make this a hard adjustment. All the pitcher has to do is count to "one" when the hands come together and then proceed.

Tony, while it is true you cannot fix stupid, it is just outright mean when you bait them. :)

You already said 12&U, but oh, Nationals level. ;)

That is true, Mike.
But sometimes stupid folks make it impossible not to.
When I run into them, I usually have them immediately go see the tournament uic - especially when they say that's what they want to do.

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;899369]Warning - Long post

A dissenter to the Oswald Tower Philosophy with rebuttal Comments from Jay Miner in bold text between *****asterisks.*****



Warning - Long post by dissenter


Not a fan because it is geared toward the game of basketball which, IMO is a game where the rules are more often inconsistently applied than any other field/court game of which I am aware. *****The real function of a true sport’s official is to preserve a safe environment for the participants and maintain fairness with a realistic approach during the quest of opposing teams attempting to win the contest.*****

In softball, we basically refer to it as not going looking for boogers. If you see it, call it, but you should never go out there "looking" for the violation. If you want to "find" a violation in any sport, you probably can at will and that isn't supposed to be what the game is about. *****The preceding text sounds very much like the Oswald Tower Philosophy. By the way, John Bunn, another truly great sport’s officiating philosopher extraordinaire, was a huge proponent of The Oswald Tower Philosophy for all sports. Researchers will have great difficulty finding any credible dissenters of the Oswald Tower Philosophy of officiating or detractors of the highly respected John Bunn. All serious officials should Google the names of those two men and analyze their philosophies of officiating.*****

However, I am mostly not a fan because of the contradiction. First you are told to make the call when you see a rules violation and then not make the call if it violation did not apply to the intent and spirit of the rule. And that is where I have a problem. *****The Tower Philosophy is a guideline that espouses applying the spirit and intent of the rule rather than the reader’s literalistic interpretation of written rulebook text. The Tower Philosophy was founded to enlighten officials and provide them a way not to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rules. Officials who are ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists, often don’t realize they are hurting their careers by being over officious and dogmatic in their approach to managing a competitive event. That fact is known by anyone who attends coaches meeting on a regular basis.*****

To start, unless you were in the room during the discussion, you really don't know the intent or spirit in which the rule was enacted. *****Shame on any official who does not understand the spirit and intent of a rule and why the rule was necessary. An official who doesn’t understand “purpose and intent” is shortchanging the athletes playing the game. Any credible official has the responsibility to research the intent and purpose of the rule and why the rule was adopted. Without that information the official will be at a disadvantage in difficult situations where rules’ knowledge, common sense, thoughtful reasoning and good judgment are vitally important. There are many knowledgeable interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors willing to share their expertise about why a particular rule is necessary.***** You can have varying opinions as to how and why and the purpose which brought the rule about, but that is the problem. *****That is why interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors exist.*****


When passing along information, people have a tendency to apply their own little touch, an embellishment they believe to help others to understand. Problem is that just because you think it will help doesn't mean the person hearing it will take it in that manner. I don't think there is anyone who teaches that doesn't do this to some level, even to the point of changing the point of emphasis in an explanation depending upon to whom you are speaking. *****That is why interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors are necessary.*****


I deal in documents involving people from 31 states & DC. I give specific directions which ask for a, b or c. Often I get 1, 2 or 3 simply because, in spite of what was typed, the respondents answered base on what they thought I meant. This has become commonplace in this country and is routinely evident on this and other boards. Well, if we cannot get people to get it straight when they have time to sit and think about it, what it going to happen when they have less than a half-second? *****It is the task of dedicated interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors to inculcate their wisdom.*****



The "intent and spirit" of rules in general is to keep a level playing field. For someone to not call a rule because "they" did not believe it fell into this category usually makes the game "fair" for one team, not the other and that in itself is not fair. *****The number one complaint of coaches and athletics’ administrators is they deplore officials who have established themselves as nitpickers who unnecessarily inflict themselves upon a contest.*****

But the biggest problem I have is that it is a readily available excuse for the weak umpire to not apply rules THEY for which they do not care or the pressure making a call may bring. *****It is much more likely the weak, unsure or poorly prepared umpire has no faith in their ability to fairly judge and adjudicate situations and who therefore seek a black or white ruling for every possible scenario that possibly might arise.*****

And before you all go off half-cocked, I am quite aware that some rules are in the book as a tool to address extreme or rare circumstances and are not meant to be a full-time collar on the players or a game. I am also aware of that some rules were geared more toward one game or level than another. That doesn't mean you ignore them, but may temper the application. *****The preceding text sounds very much like the Oswald Tower Philosophy.*****

There are many people who take the "invisible official" way too far. Some umpire believe that means to just sit back until there is an egregious violation and then step up and try to smooth it out.



In today's world, if you have a sporting event where the official on the field or court is not noticed, it is possible something just isn't right. In softball, there are still way too many people who believe in the "if you an cheatin', you ain't tryin' " adage. It is usually when the team isn't getting away with the cheating that the official becomes visible, and rightfully so, that is his/her job.



The level of rules knowledge and skill of the participants doesn't help, either. We have all seen it. They do something stupid, or is a clear violation and it is the official's fault. How many times have the youth umpire heard, "let the girls play"? Of course, it is only when the violation was on their team, not the opponent. And I don't think I need to bring up the NCAA IP saga. You want the official to have no bearing on the game, have the participants learn and play the game by the rules THEY accepted. And when they make a mistake and it is a violation, get over it and move on. As a player, I was grateful to have an umpire who made the correct call without a team having to go beg for it. Not everything is an appeal.



IOW, I believe you are there to officiate the game by the rules that are meant to be applied routinely and apply those meant for game management or safety when necessary. No need to be loud or boisterous or put on some type of show to demonstrate what is happening. If the coach needs an explanation, you get together with the coach and explain it to him or her. Don't scream at them or dismiss them, they have a job to do, also. An official is part of the game, like it or not, and needs to be visible on the field, but not part of the show.



If you need to find out the difference, that information is usually available through an official source and that can be anything from an official web site to a UIC, assuming the UIC has done his/her job and stayed abreast of the rule changes and clarifications. Apparently, some cannot be bothered with the clinics and schools available and unfortunately, pass along bad information. An umpire serious about the craft will find a way to get the correct answer. *****The previous five paragraphs appear to be off subject and not related to the Oswald Tower Philosophy of Sports’ Officiating. Therefore, no comments are offered.*****

Not ASA? Isn't it the ASA interpretation that the hands must touch to satisfy the 1-10 seconds, i.e., we're not to nitpick less than one second?

In each case, P would take the PP with both hands separated, then begin the windup where the hands might touch for an instant during the windup.

It is my ASA understanding that P must bring both hands together, pause, then when the hands separate the pitch then begins.

Am I misinformed?

I've never heard that before.

RS#40C states in part, "After taking or simulating taking the signal, bringing the hands together and keeping them together a minimum of one second and not more than 10 seconds..."

It doesn't sound like an instantaneous tap of the hands together would meet the requirement. If it does, then the RS needs to be updated.

The pause must take place after the pitcher has assumed the pitching position on the pitchers plate and while the hands are still separated. This is to allow the batter to know that the pitcher is about to pitch and to prevent the immediate step onto the PP and moving directly into the delivery.

The rule does state that the hands must come together for between one and ten seconds as Manny stated, but the interpretation has always been that as long as the hands touch, even if it is during the windup, the requirement is met.

The pause is required before the hands are joined, while simulating "taking a signal".

Not that I don't believe you, but if that's the accepted interpretation, then as I mentioned before, the rule and rule supplement in the book needs to be changed.

I don't remember that interpretation in any clinics I've attended. Of course, my memory is following the same route as the hair on top of my head...

Don't know about clinics as such, but generally accepted practice. Everything can't be in the book, or we would call it Rulepaedia. :rolleyes:

Besides, with rounding, a second is 0.5000000001 second and who can tell that from 0.0000000001 second. ;) :D

Speaking Fed, 6-1-1-c "...the pitcher shall bring the hands together in front of the body for not less than one second and not more than 10 seconds before releasing the ball. The hands may motionless or moving.

What Andy is stated is true, has been for more than twenty years, just a simple touch. However, it should be noted that there is no requirement for a stop or pause with the hands together.

I would assume the interpretation to a touch being considered one second was because what you think is one second, what Andy thinks is one second and what I think is one second, may be three different things and this would probably cause more havoc than it is worth and would not be helpful for the game or its flow.

But let's look @ 6.1.E and RS #40.c. They do not read the same.

The rule states that the pitcher must bring the hands together not less than one second or more than ten seconds before releasing the ball.

That could be read that the pitcher has to bring her hands together not less than one second prior to releasing the ball, but must release within ten seconds after bringing them together.

The RS does state that the hands must be kept together for at least one second, but not more than ten.

And if you think about it, is there any good purpose of having a minimum time? The pitcher has already paused on the PP with the hands separated to alert the batter that the pitch will be coming shortly. Well, there isn't until someone catches on that there is no requirement to come together immediately out of the pause.

Yes, you are misinformed. There are really two separate issues being discussed here. First is the pause, second is the minimum time the hands are together. They are not related, except that both are part of the pitching rule.

The only pause either ASA or NFHS requires is with the hands separated while taking, or pretending to take, the signals from the catcher. The purpose of the pause is to prevent a quick pitch.

The touch (bringing the hands together) followed by separating the hands does start the pitch in ASA, but not NFHS. In NFHS, the pitch is started with the motion of the windup (which may be before the hands actually separate).

The hands may be in motion while together; no pause is necessary here. IOW, this is part of the wind-up.

In ASA, the touch-and-go has been an accepted interpretation of the 1 second minimum for years, although this interpretation has never been put in writing AFAIK.

I don't do international rules, but IIRC previous discussions on this board, the international rules make it clear that touch-and-go is not accepted by making the timing 2 to 10 seconds rather than 1 to 10.

It's the hands separating that defines the start of the pitch in ASA.

Fed 6-1-2a) The pitch starts when one hand is taken off the ball or the pitcher makes any motion that is part of the windup after the hands have been brought together.