Pitching question

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Rule cite?

The rule has been cited multiple times. Including once above by me.

Equating the infinitesimal (literally, btw) time the arm has no forward velocity with a noticeable pause is an incredible stretch to me.... but if you insist on calling them the same thing - then you've just stretched the rules to disallow backswings, not to allow the motion described in the OP. Good luck with that.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

The rule has been cited multiple times. Including once above by me.

Equating the infinitesimal (literally, btw) time the arm has no forward velocity with a noticeable pause is an incredible stretch to me.... but if you insist on calling them the same thing - then you've just stretched the rules to disallow backswings, not to allow the motion described in the OP. Good luck with that.

I've seen numerous pitchers who take a large backswing that effectively stop at the top of the backswing in a kind of gathering before they begin the windmill. The stopping is very noticeable; it is merely ignored.

The only reason this is deemed illegal is because it is unusual, IMO. If mere stopping between the back motion and the starting of the forward motion was illegal, then the pitchers referenced above would also be illegal.

[jwwashburn]

So, you think stopping should be allowed?

Tell ASA to change the rule.

Since the rule says she MUST NOT STOP, this pitcher is illegal.

[Dakota]

You guys keep excerpting the rule to leave out the "forward motion" part. 6-3-C says she must not stop the forward motion. Since she has not started the forward motion, the forward motion has not stopped.

Now, if she did what was described and then just never delivered the pitch, then that clearly violates the "immediately" delivering the pitch rule 6-3-A.

Again, I don't think 6-3-C applies since the forward motion has never started. It is the forward motion that must not be stopped or reversed.

Therefore, for this to be illegal, it must be judged to be violating 6-3-A in not "immediately delivering the ball to the batter" after making a motion to pitch.

Hence, my reference to the look back rule. How long is "immediately"? The OP says "for a second" and "noticeable pause". Without seeing the pitcher, I'm having a hard time making the absolute ruling (coupled with sneering sarcasm) that some of you seem comfortable with.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You guys keep excerpting the rule to leave out the "forward motion" part. 6-3-C says she must not stop the forward motion. Since she has not started the forward motion, the forward motion has not stopped.

Now, if she did what was described and then just never delivered the pitch, then that clearly violates the "immediately" delivering the pitch rule 6-3-A.

Again, I don't think 6-3-C applies since the forward motion has never started. It is the forward motion that must not be stopped or reversed.

Therefore, for this to be illegal, it must be judged to be violating 6-3-A in not "immediately delivering the ball to the batter" after making a motion to pitch.

Hence, my reference to the look back rule. How long is "immediately"? The OP says "for a second" and "noticeable pause". Without seeing the pitcher, I'm having a hard time making the absolute ruling (coupled with sneering sarcasm) that some of you seem comfortable with.

Well, I'm certainly not using 6-3-C as the rule, since I don't think it applies at all. 6-3-A is all I need to deem this illegal.

And I think you'll get into trouble comparing the pitching and look back rules when quantifying the term "immediately". We don't allow the pitcher to stop her motion to pitch because it can put the batter at a distinct disadvantage. Is there a similar disadvantage that a runner puts on the pitcher when she doesn't advance or return immediately to a base? I don't feel there is. The amount of concentration a batter puts into the pitch as she locks and loads is much higher than what a pitcher puts into a runner who is off a base. Any slight hesitation in the pitcher's motion that isn't part of her pitch is going to disrupt the batter's concentration. She separates her hands and then puts the ball against her hip, it sounds like she's almost appearing to be looking in for a sign again.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

You guys keep excerpting the rule to leave out the "forward motion" part. 6-3-C says she must not stop the forward motion. Since she has not started the forward motion, the forward motion has not stopped.

No I'm not. I'm not using that part of the rule at all. You're right that this rule doesn't apply ... which is why we've "excerpted" it.

6-2 (when the pitch starts), and 6-3-A (if you start, you must immediately pitch) is what we're talking about on this one.

[jwwashburn]

6-2 The starts when the hands are separated.

6-3-A "Immediately" cannot possibly be construed to allow the pitcher described in the OP.

We cannot have an immediate delivery and include the stopping. This pitch is illegal.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

No I'm not. I'm not using that part of the rule at all. You're right that this rule doesn't apply ... which is why we've "excerpted" it.

6-2 (when the pitch starts), and 6-3-A (if you start, you must immediately pitch) is what we're talking about on this one.

Your paraphrase of 6-3-A is not accurate. It does not say "if you start, you must immediately pitch"

It says that you "can't make a motion to pitch without immediately delivering the ball to the batter"

My opinion all along has been that there has been no "motion to pitch" yet. The pitch has started by rule since the hands have separated, but the "motion to pitch" has not started.

[MD Longhorn]

I think we're at the point where discussion is no longer helpful. You're not going to believe the nearly unanimous disagreement with your point of view on this and the other forum. I suggest you ask this at your next clinic. I assure you this HAS come up more than once at clinics I've been to. TPTB are clear they want this called illegal.

There are a lot of things not worded perfectly in the rulebook ... but to lawyerize the rulebook so that every single term is defined would double the length of the book. When 99% of the umpires out there can read a set of rules and come to agreement on what it means ... and that meaning matches what is taught in clinics ... the fact that you can worm around with definitions of words (not terms defined for us at the beginning) to make the words fit what you WANT to be the truth doesn't really mean anything.

I'm positive, however, that it requires MOTION to separate one's hands, and that motion, given that it does, by rule, define the beginning of the pitch ... that motion of separating one's hands is "motion to pitch".

You ... however ... do what you will. I do urge you to ask someone higher up - someone you WILL believe if he tells you that what you want the rule to be and what the rule actually is meant to be are two different things. (I did the same... and with no intended offense to you, his reply was, "This is a stupid question - I know you know better.")