USA Canada

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

She was not replanting, she was leaping and delivering the pitch with a following through. See the definition as listed by the ISF (which is posted above - which, IMO, is the most apt description of why a leap doesn't constitute a "replant"). Now to expand on this point:

As umpires, we need to forget the word "replant" as there is no such violation in the three major codes at this time (NCAA, ASA and NFHS). If the pivot foot becomes airborne, that's a leap and end of story. A leap is a leap is a leap.

A crow hop is when the pitch "begins" from somewhere in front of the pitcher's plate. For the vast majority of female pitchers, if the hands separate and the drag begins, she cannot (physically) get a second "push point" to deliver the pitch. This is even more so if they arm is in motion; for her to get that second starting point, she would have to stop her arm, gather herself, then pitch . . all after the initial drag.

The confusion arose with NCAA calling "replants," but then changed the interpretation in 2012 after a high profile pitcher* was called for many "replants." The interpretation was the aligned to ASA/NFHS (the book, however, still mentioned about "bearing weight" 10.4.6).

Again, it comes down to body mechanics, once in motion, you continue your motion. A former ASA clinician made a statement: "if the arm is in motion, you cannot crow hop." We need to remember that phrase.

I know there is a highly knowledgeable and respected softball person who believes in the "crow drag." Possible yes, but as I've stated, the arm would have to stop, a regather of the body, and then the second push. That would be very obvious for a female pitcher. Men's pitchers are more apt to crow-drag (notice that the crow hop NFHS videos is a MAN?).

*The high profile pitcher is the subject of this thread.

Agreed vis-a-vis the NCAA, but would add that the "high profile pitcher" was less high profile at that time than the "high profile coach", unstated in this thread, but calling the pitches and coaching third base yesterday. As a member (head) of the NCAA Rules Committee, it would seem a conflict of interest to lobby for a revised interpretation to benefit HIS pitcher; but, apparently not considered as such by those that should monitor that situation.

The first mention of a crow-drag wasn't so much what you are describing; it was brought to my attention in the late 90's to early 2000's as a Cal thing with pitchers sliding off the front and pushing from that new spot; their "argument" was it was legal because they weren't leaping nor "hopping". The simpler ruling would have been to call it illegal for pushing off from a spot other than the pitching plate, but the NUS instead coined the phrase "crow-drag", suggesting that it was a version of the crow-hop.

I can agree that a pitcher gains little to nothing by her foot bearing weight, and that if the arm is in motion and about to deliver the ball, nothing is even gained by possibly replanting and pushing again after dragging. But, I have also seen a middle-ground version where the separation and windup and resulting arm motion seem to delay as the foot drags, and does appear to gain a second impetus with added energy as the arm is still up at twelve or one o'clock when the leg repushes several feet in front of the pitching plate; if that is what this highly respected clinician is calling a "crow-drag", then I agree that is and should be illegal.