Pitching question
 

12u ASA tournament this weekend.

RHP steps onto the the pitching plate with the ball in her glove and hands separated. While on the PP, she reaches into her glove, pulls the ball out and holds it against her right hip for a second. After a noticeable pause, she begins her pitching motion. She does not bring her hands together a second time.

Is the act of pausing with the ball on the hip an illegal pitch? What rule (ASA) would you cite?

Illegal
 

Pause=stop right?

The pitching motion has to be continuous is the phrase that sticks out here.

I do not have my book in front of me....someone can correct me if I have this wrong.

6-3-A, The pitcher shall not make any motion to pitch without immediately delivering the ball to the batter.

Once the hands came together and separated the pitch has begun and must be immediately delivered.

Agree with the above. Also, 6-3-C: The pitcher must not make a stop or reversal of the forward motion after separating the hands. This sounds like it's clearly a stop.

She hasn't started forward motion yet according to the post.

But, she has made a motion to pitch as soon as she took her hands apart.

This is one area where an approved interpretation would be useful. The Rules Supplement uses exactly the same language as 6-3-C. When I read the rule, I interpreted it broadly that neither (1) a stop (of any kind), nor (2) a reversal of the forward motion is permitted.

I can see how someone else may read it more literally as requiring the forward motion to be continuous, without stops or reversals. What about actions that occur between separating the hands, but before the forward motion? In that case, 6-3-D permits the pitcher to drop the arm to the side before beginning the windmill. It does not specify if a brief pause after dropping the arm down or to the rear is illegal.

I still think it's illegal; we just differ on the applicable rule.

I think 6.3.a is more applicable than 6.3.c; as it is hard to say there is any "forward" motion.

There are no commas in 6-3-c which would make those independent statements. They are all descriptors of the forward motion. The pitcher may not stop or reverse forward motion once it has started. As for 6-3-d, it is describing a legal back swing prior to starting the forward motion, it is not saying a pitcher may separate the hands and drop the arm to the side and stop.

Fair enough, 6-3-A it is. :D That's half the fun of nitpicking these things here on the board, seeing how other umpires read and interpret the rules and their application. I'm curious to hear Andy's followup on the ruling as it happened on the field.

I was the tournament UIC and this particular situation was described to me for discussion. It was not called illegal by the PU on the field, but he and the BU disagreed and brought it to me. I did not see it as this pitcher only pitched for one inning and I was occupied elsewhere.....I ruled it as legal and here is my rationale:

I know what the pitching rules say about a stop or reversal of the forward motion or stopping the motion to pitch. My contention is that neither of these apply. As has been stated, there has been no forward motion, so 6-3-C is out. 6-3-A states that the pitcher can't make a motion to pitch without delivering the ball to the batter. I don't see where that has been violated either. 6-2 defines the starting point of the pitch as the hands coming together and separating, however in the pitch described, her pitching motion has not started until she takes the ball off of her hip and goes into her windup. My rationale for not calling this illegal is that the pitch has started, but her pitching motion has not

Doesn't matter how many forums you type this in, it's illegal in all of them.

Andy, you cannot separate the two. The pitch starts with a motion, that being the act of separating the hands. From that point til the ball is released, the pitcher must maintain continuous motion or she violates 6-3-A.

He's trying too hard to mix 6-2 with 6-3-C, ignoring that 6-2 and 6-3-A also go together. Further, he keeps tying 6-3-A and omitting the important word "immediately".

Is a back swing legal? Yes.
Is a stop necessary to have a back swing? Yes.

So, where does the rule state how long the stop at the back of the back swing can be?

And, if you claim "immediately" means "infinitesimally small", explain how the word "immediately" clearly does NOT mean that in the look back rule.

The purpose of these pitching mechanics rules is to not have the batter be deceived as to the start of the pitch and when in the pitching motion to expect the release. Was this deceiving anyone? (e.g. Did she do this sometimes or all the time?)

First of all...I just put this here for discussion and trying to present a different point of view on the way the rule reads.

I posted it a couple of different places because I wanted opinions and discussions from different people that may not read all of the various forums.

Frankly, I'm a bit surprised that you, MD, seem so closed minded on this one. Your history has suggested that of someone that sometimes questions the logic and written word of the rule(s) and points out discrepancies. This is one of those situations, in my opinion.

To address Dakota...as described to me, this pitcher did this every pitch.

Sorry if I'm appearing to be closed-minded on this one. It's just that the motion you've described seems pretty clearly illegal. You stated there was a noticable pause. That's what the pitcher is not allowed to do, once she's started.

To Dakota - the answer to your second assumption is not yes. You're talking about a person moving in 3 dimensions. There is no pause during a backswing. To put it in scientific terms - the backswing might momentarily have zero forward velocity (although not zero velocity in every direction) but it never has zero forward acceleration... while the motion described in the OP has both zero velocity and zero acceleration... a noticable pause, or a stop in the delivery.

I didn't read from the OP that the pitcher executed a backswing. She reached into her glove while on the plate, pulled the ball out, and then put it up against her hip for, as Andy wrote, "a noticeable pause". That's a stop in her motion, not a backswing, as I envision it.

I'm sort of curious as to how a pitch can start without a motion to pitch?

This is part of my problem with all rule sets. The rules and interpretations have been bastardized over the years to accommodate the pitcher. Until this began, FP was not always a pitcher's duel

Rule cite?

Your response is, well, veering off. The issue is velocity (rearward or forward), not side-to-side, and certainly not acceleration. As you say, it will have zero forward velocity... i.e. it will be stopped as far as the motion being legislated in the rule is concerned. If you are going to go that far, there will always be SOME motion anytime the ball is being held, unless it is being held by a bronze statue.

A backswing is allowed, therefore rearward velocity is allowed. There must, therefore, be a transition from rearward to forward, during which transition, the rear/forward velocity reaches zero... i.e., it stops.

Do the rules define a backswing? Does it have to go past the hip?

No they don't, so it leaves it to us to judge it. And I judge a pitcher removing her hand from the glove and then placing it against her hip and stopping is not a backswing. There is no element of "swing" in there.

Using your logic, then we allow them to come to the pitching plate with both hands together, right?

If you allow illegal pitches, you punish the pitchers who do it right.

Non sequitur.

I'm still waiting for someone to show a clear rule (or ruling) to show that this is illegal. Unusual does not equate to illegal.

I'm not sure how I would have ruled had I been presented with this action by the pitcher without having had this discussion. I have no problem calling it illegal if it is, in fact, illegal. Show me.

6.3.c says she must not stop. This pitcher stopped. It is illegal.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.")