Legal pitch?
 

http://www.cactusumpires.com/pitchers.html

Please take a look at Pitcher #3 (lefty), in particular in the 3rd frame.
Since this is intended as a tutorial for umpires, please tell me this is incorrectly being described as legal.

Not sure where in those photos you get the impression it is being described as legal.

At picture #3 on pitcher #3, she had done nothing illegal. Pivot foot on the ground, still in contact with the pitcher's plate, and the stride foot just beginning the stride. That pitch wasn't illegal, until picture #5, when the pivot/drag foot stopped dragging and elevated.

Picture # 3 is an Illegal Pitch as well as those that follow. The caption reads "Opps! I see air. Right here she is leaping. Notice that the pitching arm is just beginning to come up for the windmill revolution. Both feet are in the air."

Then you aren't looking at Pitcher #3, the lefty referenced. You do realize there are multiple slide sets, right??

She obviously replants and goes past her hip twice...illegal!

There is nothing in the rules about going past the hip twice.

Hopefully we're all looking at the same pitcher (red top/white sleeves, black shorts)

Pitcher is starting with pivot foot's heel touching the front of the PP. As the back foot goes forward past the pivot foot, PF goes up on it's ball, breaking contact from that point on. This is during the backswing motion. Caption "All okay."

The caption in picture 4 is "Still doing fine. That heel off the rubber is okay - toe did not go forward, foot just bent."

If that's legal, fine, let me know. But from that point on, she's at least 5-6 inches in front of the PP, and way before any pushoff and slide.

(Draw a straight line down from the gatepost; that's what I'm seeing as the PP.)

ASA is legal to only be touching the pitching plate with the pivot foot at the start of the pitching motion. NFHS and NCAA as well as I believe USSSA require at least a portion of the pivot foot to be on top of the pitching plate.

This is an NCAA training item (these are college pitchers); and the NCAA rule is clear that this action is legal, as the caption says. The pivot foot can slide, even forward, as long as any part of the foot remains over the plane of the plate; and/or the the pivot foot can arch, turn, or bend, even off the plane of the plate, if the front of the foot (toe) doesn't advance closer to the batter. In this slide set, the front of the foot was 5-6 inches in front of the PP when her heel was flat on the ground and PP at the beginning; it was still at that spot when you saw the heel up on slide #3.

Not written so clearly in ASA or NFHS, but I accept the same first half of that (foot still over the plane) as not illegal, but not the second half (foot not even over the plane, but it hasn't advanced). That said, the foot needs to be clearly off and not over, not just in the vicinity of off, for me to make that call.

Thanks Steve, understood. But once she goes up on the ball of her pivot foot (the ball of the foot being 6ish inches in front of the PP), is she is not now "Pushing off with the pivot foot from a place other than the pitcher's plate"(ASA 6.3.J).

And, this is not a difficult thing to see in real time. She is off the PP for most of her action.


BTW, I was still typing when you replied...

6.3-I says she can slide or turn the pivot foot as long as it maintains contact (part two of NCAA rule difference above). But, she hasn't turned nor slid (slided?) the foot, it's in the same place.

And that's why I reject 6.3-J for this slide. She's still in the same place, albeit not maintaining contact. This part of the rule doesn't specify maintaining contact, just not pushing from another "place".

Let's be honest. The NCAA rule incorporates an interpretation of actions that they judge don't gain an advantage. I'm not looking to nitpick something that isn't clearly stated to be illegal (when it easily could be, like stated in maintaining contact when sliding or turning the foot) when there is no apparent advantage, AND it's clearly stated to be legal in another major (read the big three, NCAA/ASA/NFHS) ruleset.

Since when does something have to be specifically stated as illegal for it to be illegal?

Well, I think you are being facetious, my friend, but, for those that may not grasp the concepts (and in honor of us both NOT being at the National UIC Clinic for the first time!!):

There are two categories in the pitching rule; 1) those items that must happen to be legal, and 2) those items that if they happen are illegal. Both must be taken literally to be cited.

Category 1 examples: Must step on the PP fully within the 24" width with both feet and hands separated, must take or simulate signal after stepping on and before bringing hands together, must actually bring hands together in order to legally separate to begin a pitch,

Category 2 examples: May not leap, may not separate hands without immediately and continuously pitching, may not release the ball with the wrist further from the body than the elbow, may not make two revolutions on the windmill, may not have hands together more than 10 seconds (5 in NCAA), may not make another revolution after releasing the ball (chinese changeup).

NOT ILLEGAL examples often cited, but no rule that actually or specifically makes it illegal: Taking a signal off the PP, not "presenting" the ball, the hand passing the hip twice, the hands touched but the ball wasn't "inside the glove", not wiping the hand after using the rosin bag or touching the dirt (is illegal to not wipe in NCAA only!!), bringing the pitching hand to the mouth while on the "mound", using a slingshot release after using a windmill (changing the motion), grunting on release.

Yes, mixed emotions about that. Dearly missed the camaraderie of my friends and fellow umpires. OTOH, not a fan of moving it to a facility that knowingly could not handle the event. People can say what they want about the Biltmore, but IMO that location was perfect.

And that is part of my problem. TOO many things are listed as illegal or not permissible that should be painfully obvious as the action does not specifically meet the requirements to be a legal pitch. I would rather see ALL rule sets concentrate on the specifics of what constitutes a legal action with the default of illegal for any act/actions that do not meet the specs of the legal pitch.

It is my belief that many rules are specifically dummied down to accommodate the ignorant and/or the snake-oil salesman type of participant.

Over compensation for the dummies (and I use that term affectionately) can really screw up a rule. For years, the ASA allowed for the drop third strike being in effect when there were less than two outs or with two outs and a runner on 1B. The rule did not address a scenario with two outs and no runner on 1B. So, if you followed the rule as it was written, the D3K was not in effect with two outs and 1B unoccupied. We all knew the correct ruling, but there was nothing to support it. The rule should have always been "Any time with two outs".


Another over compensation is on the IF. The rule states the IF is in effect with 1st & 2nd base or 1st, 2nd & 3rd base occupied at the time of the pitch. Why is the second half of that quantifier even included? Who gives a damn about 3rd base, it is irrelevant to the IF. However, it is probably there because some fool who was pretending to be an umpire bought into a sly coach's argument that the rule book did not specify that 3rd base could be unoccupied, so the IF was not in effect when the bases were juiced.