USA Canada

[DRJ1960]

Does International Softball allow the pitcher to replant? USA pitcher (Nevins?) has replanted on every pitch I've looked at closely.

[RKBUmp]

International pitching rules are different than most other rule sets.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Does International Softball allow the pitcher to replant? USA pitcher (Nevins?) has replanted on every pitch I've looked at closely.

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

International pitching rules are different than most other rule sets.

Here is a quote from the ISF Official Rules of Softball:

Sec. 20. CROW HOP. (FP ONLY)
A Crow hop is defined as the act of a pitcher who does not push off from the pitcher's plate to deliver the ball. THIS IS AN ILLEGAL ACT if the pitcher steps off the pitcher’s plate, thereby establishing a second impetus (or starting point) and then pushes off from the new starting point and completes the delivery. NOTE: The pitcher may leap, from the pitcher’s plate, land and, with a continuous motion, deliver the ball to the plate. The pivot foot may push off and/or follow through with this continuous action and this is NOT considered a crow hop

[Manny A]

I barely watched any of the tournament, but what caught my eye was the fact that when the umpires were wearing pink a couple of days ago, they had ASA-logoed shirts. But then in yesterday's final, they were wearing ISF. What gives with the different organizations?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

Does International Softball allow the pitcher to replant? USA pitcher (Nevins?) has replanted on every pitch I've looked at closely.

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.

[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.

[DRJ1960]

just so I am sure I am hearing correctly... in International softball a pitcher can push off from plate, land on the sole of her push off foot (distance from plate irrelevant) and deliver a legal pitch as long as there is no "pause" in her delivery?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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.

IMO, in an effort to pinpoint specifics and give excuse for not applying the rule to certain pitchers, softball organizations has screwed this rule all to hell.

The definition with which I was initiated was when the pitcher created a second impetus during the delivery that was not on the pitcher's plate.

Real simple, no splitting hairs, but apparently too difficult for many to understand. My belief is that those folks didn't want to understand because it stifled their actions. If a traditionalists were true to their sport, the foot wouldn't even be allow to leave the pitcher's plate.

What has happened is that pitchers have been stretching the rules to the point that the rule is changed or interpretation adjusted to permit the change.

It has gotten to the point that the distance of the pitch as compared to that of the PP has been reduced by nearly 20% or more depending on the pitcher

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by DRJ1960

just so I am sure I am hearing correctly... in International softball a pitcher can push off from plate, land on the sole of her push off foot (distance from plate irrelevant) and deliver a legal pitch as long as there is no "pause" in her delivery?

In international softball, a pitcher's pivot foot may leave the ground. The pitch can be delivered after it returns to the ground as long as the pitcher continues his or her motion. Which happens in all women who leap (and most men).

[CecilOne]

hold for later, just back from vacation

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

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).

Isn't that just an abbreviation/euphemism for pushing off from somewhere else than the pitching plate (as in NFHS case 6.1.2.b) after placing (planting) the pivot foot on the pitching plate to begin the pitch?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

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.

if that is what this highly respected clinician is calling a "crow-drag", then I agree that is and should be illegal.

Please correct me if "pushing off from a spot other than the pitching plate" legal; regardless of whether the pivot foot leaves the ground or not to get there.

Also please correct me if the "argument" that it is legal because they didn't leap nor "hop" is a misunderstanding of the rule.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Please correct me if "pushing off from a spot other than the pitching plate" legal; regardless of whether the pivot foot leaves the ground or not to get there.

Also please correct me if the "argument" that it is legal because they didn't leap nor "hop" is a misunderstanding of the rule.

It is, and always was, illegal. But, the argument gained some short-lived credibility (first known as the California drag), because the umpires there attempted to call it a crow hop, and it apparently wasn't by the wording of the definition at that time. Again, if they had simply stated it was illegal to push off from any place other than the pitcher's plate (a separate rule that DID exist at that time), it would have died, and "crow-drag" never would have been coined (you know there was no way it would be termed "California drag" in the era of California claiming ownership of all things fastpitch).