Jump to content

Pitching Stance Question


Guidry
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3307 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

With the new (last couple of years) emphasis on the legal and illegal stances, we're allegedly trying to enforce the rule more now. I had a pre-season scrimmage last weekend (no records) so the "enforcement" is a little more gentle. A pitcher was taking his warm up throws and I noticed he was starting with his non-pivot foot obviously, 6"+ in front of the rubber. I immediately told the coach so he could correct it (Remember, this is a scrimmage). Coach gets all upset and asks me, "Are you really going to call that on him?" I told him I was not calling anything, I was letting him know now to correct it. He continues his rant, not toward me but to his assistants that he can't believe it. Anyway, he got his pitcher to change his stance before the inning started. After that half inning, he came up to me to apologize saying he knew it was a point of emphasis and it wasn't my rule, blah blah, bah....Later though, the opposing coach brought up a good question. What is the reasoning behind that rule? What benefit is the pitcher getting by taking that illegal stance? Is he deceiving anyone?

 

I couldn't give an answer. With no one on base, which is probably 90% of the time the wind-up is used, he can't deceive anyone. Besides it violating a description written, why is that stance illegal? Maybe I simply haven't seen the situation where that stance would be beneficial to the pitcher, but I just don't see the reasoning. Anyone have the reason for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave some in another thread on this subject --

 

Some coach somewhere thought he could cheat.

 

Some coach somewhere thought he was being cheated (or was trying to get in F1's head by claiming he was being cheated.)

 

Some umpire called a balk (or didn't) when everyone else knew it wasn't (or was) because the umpire couldn't tell which position the pitcher was in.

 

NCAA did it so Fed tried to follow suit (sort of). (And, now that NCAA has dropped, maybe FED will, too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In FED, you can't throw to a base from the wind up w/o a legal disengage.  

 

So it is important to be able to discern between the windup and the set.  

 

What other reasons are there?  

This is the really the only answer. I guess it would be be too easy for FED to align with other codes and allow F1 to step and throw to a base from the windup, there by making the FED rule for not allowing the hybrid stance unnecessary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In FED, you can't throw to a base from the wind up w/o a legal disengage.  

 

So it is important to be able to discern between the windup and the set.  

 

What other reasons are there?  

 

You give it in a post just above: consistency.

 

FED rules generally promote safety above all, but another priority is consistency of officiating around the country. That's the rationale for the dead-ball balk: it's easier to officiate, so gets more consistent rulings across the country.

 

The same is true for pitching stance. One rule (well, 2 positions), the same for all situations, regardless of runners. Aim for the lowest common denominator.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree as to everything above as to consistency and not having different pitching rules with and without runners. But how about this one, because it's arguably the same thing, and I've never seen it called:

 

FED Rule 6, Art. 3  "For the set position, . . . He shall come to a complete and discernible stop. . . . Penalty:  The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter."

 

Anybody calling an illegal pitch with no runners on, if pitcher in set position does not come to a complete and discernible stop? And if it's "overly officious" to call that (which is honestly why I never have, although I've seen a lot of technically illegal no stop pitches from the stretch with no runners on) how is that materially different from the OP?  Serious question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree as to everything above as to consistency and not having different pitching rules with and without runners. But how about this one, because it's arguably the same thing, and I've never seen it called:

 

FED Rule 6, Art. 3  "For the set position, . . . He shall come to a complete and discernible stop. . . . Penalty:  The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter."

 

Anybody calling an illegal pitch with no runners on, if pitcher in set position does not come to a complete and discernible stop? And if it's "overly officious" to call that (which is honestly why I never have, although I've seen a lot of technically illegal no stop pitches from the stretch with no runners on) how is that materially different from the OP?  Serious question.

 

Yeah, you should expect both answers here. Some will argue that this is simply a rule difference, like the pitching stance thing, and we have to enforce FED's rule in HS games. Others will contend that not stopping in this situation confers no advantage and so should be ignored.

 

I split the difference. If F1 blows through a stop with no runners on, I'll send F2 out to tell him to stop. So I do enforce the rule, but not by using the penalty. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree as to everything above as to consistency and not having different pitching rules with and without runners. But how about this one, because it's arguably the same thing, and I've never seen it called:

 

FED Rule 6, Art. 3  "For the set position, . . . He shall come to a complete and discernible stop. . . . Penalty:  The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter."

 

Anybody calling an illegal pitch with no runners on, if pitcher in set position does not come to a complete and discernible stop? And if it's "overly officious" to call that (which is honestly why I never have, although I've seen a lot of technically illegal no stop pitches from the stretch with no runners on) how is that materially different from the OP?  Serious question.

 

You are correct.  That being said, I tend to subscribe to noumpere's philosophy of peaked awareness.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a pitcher going from the stretch to start an inning. He came to complete stop on his first 3 pitches. Count now 1-2. He then goes straight from stretch into delivery. Nothing resembling a stop at all. We called him for an illegal pitch. He was called for the same thing later in the year. 

 

Similar to this one.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v17074027

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a pitcher going from the stretch to start an inning. He came to complete stop on his first 3 pitches. Count now 1-2. He then goes straight from stretch into delivery. Nothing resembling a stop at all. We called him for an illegal pitch. He was called for the same thing later in the year.

Similar to this one.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v17074027

No one on base don't be picky

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the answer. If you're in an association or work for an authority with an opinion ask and call in accord with the guidance. Most think it's OOO unless F1 truly is "quick pitching".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously?? In a FED game you're going to allow F1 to start in a set position, then begin his delivery without bringing his hands together? I'm not talking about no stop with no runners on. This guy just started his pitching motion from a set position without ever bringing the hands together. IP all day in FED

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF no runners on what is it hurting?  Who is he fooling?  So what?  

 

I say again, with no runners on, a batter properly in the box and ready, if not quick pitching from this position, no problem.

 

Maybe we are not understanding each other?  

Please see below:

 

“Use the rules to solve a problem.  Don’t use the rules to create a problem.â€- Such a great quote shared by John Perretta relating something he heard/learned at The Umpire School by Minor League Baseball, Jan. 2015.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF no runners on what is it hurting?  Who is he fooling?  So what?  

 

I say again, with no runners on, a batter properly in the box and ready, if not quick pitching from this position, no problem.

 

Maybe we are not understanding each other?  

Please see below:

 

“Use the rules to solve a problem.  Don’t use the rules to create a problem.â€- Such a great quote shared by John Perretta relating something he heard/learned at The Umpire School by Minor League Baseball, Jan. 2015.

I'm, strictly thinking FED. He's starting with his hands apart, free foot in front of the rubber. FED says this is the start of the set position (i.e. there is no hybrid in FED). From the set, he must bring both hands together. To me, if he's not bringing both hands together, he's not pitching from a correct set position. It's more akin to a hybrid. I'm fine with it in any other code. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...