pitch
 

NFHS fast pitch softball. Pitcher steps on the pitcher's plate with her hands separated. A. She then brings her hands together before the batter is in the batter's box or B. she brings her hands together before the umpire is ready. Is A & B legal or illegal?

What rule do you think she might have broken?

That's the first question you should always ask when something seems odd. Lots of things look odd, but are not illegal - and if you're going to call an IP, you should know EXACTLY what rule was broken.

Hope that helps.

That's exactly what she's supposed to do. No problem so far.

When a pitcher steps on the plate with her hands separated, she is supposed to then take or simulate taking a sign from the catcher. If she did that before bringing her hands together, it doesn't matter where the batter is located.

And after she brings her hands together, all you need to worry about is whether or not she begins her pitching motion while the batter is not ready to take the pitch. She has one to ten seconds to release the ball after bringing her hands together. That's plenty of time for the batter to get in there and be ready.

If the batter is in the box but isn't ready (e.g., she's still digging in) when the pitcher begins her delivery, the umpire should call a No Pitch and then tell her to wait until the batter is set. That's just a pitching infraction and not really anything illegal.

If the batter is still out of the box, then it's more than likely that the batter has violated the requirement to get into the box within ten seconds after the pitcher has the ball. In that case, a strike is called on the batter.

Then it behooves the umpire to get ready. There is no requirement for the pitcher to wait until the umpire is ready before she puts her hands together. Heck, unless the umpire has called Time and/or has his/her hand up facing the pitcher, the pitcher could go through with the pitch while the umpire is oblivious.

There have been occasions where I've been surprised by pitchers who work quickly and released a pitch just as I'm getting set. I've never flat-out missed a pitch, but have come close.

If you say so. ;) :p :rolleyes: :D

That's just his opinion. I'm sure the umpires in the stands would disagree that he, as well as everyone else who umpired has missed a pitch at some point.

Bullshit. That is as absurd as a skier who states they don't fall.

When I said "miss a pitch", I meant in the context of this discussion where the umpire isn't ready.

There have been plenty of times where I have gotten into my stance and as I look up for the next pitch, the pitcher is already in her delivery motion. But I have never had a situation where the ball is already in the catcher's mitt before I even look to the pitcher. THAT'S what I meant by "miss a pitch."

Wow. It's OBVIOUS what he meant - missed the OCCURRENCE of a pitch before being ready ... not missed the correct call.

Umm..... not being rude...but you're a little cranky here....

Well, B shouldn't happen because you should be ready prior to the batter getting ready (not "set" but "ready" while the batter is getting set).

In your A scenario:
NFHS has no clarification; but as a matter of good practice you should not allow her to pitch (start the wind up, etc.) prior to the batter being set.

In ASA, I've heard KR state that we should make the pitcher step off and start over/reset. This was said at a per-tournament clinic and is not in writing. I wish it was in writing.

In NCAA, in (recent) written communication I've had with the rule editor, she basically states the pitcher cannot take/simulate the signal without the batter being ready because that is the process during the "middle 10 seconds." So putting her hands together would be a violation. Now, before I get flamed, the communication stops short of what type of violation; 10.2 would be an illegal pitch where 10.18 is just a ball on the batter. I hope my question makes the rules interpretations (I've had 2 pitchers this year in NCAA do this). Here is a snipet of the email:

I haven't found anything in the rule that supports the rule editor's statement of when a pitcher can take/simulate a signal as it relates to the position of the batter. Nor did I find where bringing her hands together prior to the batter entering the box is stated to be a violation, only how long she has to bring them together after that happens and how long she can have her hands together prior to pitching. It looks like there is some "mixing" of the two rules maybe.

I haven't had pitchers do this in my games I don't have a feel of how odd it looks/feels.

We know what you meant. I know I was just giving you a hard time, because we all know the umpires in the paid seats will think you missed a pitch even when you saw it.

It is right from her mouth (fingers). But like I said, it is short of which rule is violated. I, personally, would like to see 10.18 broken into three sub rules, one for each "segment." Saw it twice this year (DI and DIII) and last year (DII). Saw it in high school last year as well.

How does the pitcher comply if before the batter, isn't that not after both?

Wouldn't doing it out of sequence, not AFTER both pitcher and batter are in position, be a violation of the timing sequence, and the penalty stated as a ball on the batter, not an illegal pitch?

Just FYI, I made that call on an ESPN3 game; got an "attaboy" from my coordinator. It helped that the pitcher even had her hands together more than 5 seconds before the batter stepped in; I waited for that, in case she legally backed off and re-engaged in time.

Steve - I read 10.18 as limiting the time the pitcher has to bring her hands together, not preventing her from already having them together. For me, it wouldn't constitute a violation of the timing sequence.

The pitcher in your ESPN3 game having her hands together for more than 5 seconds prior to the batter stepping in has no bearing since, by rule, this part of the timing doesn't begin until they're both in position.

Obviously I'm not the Rules Interpreter and must use her interpretation once it's official. I just don't see the rule, as written, supporting that interpretation.