Settle an argument please

[Jimurray]

If I allow it, it's legal.  And I'm allowing it.  

 

Enforcing this would be akin to, say, making a catcher remove a stud in his tongue 

Are you going to tell him he can't do it with runners on?

[ALStripes17]

If I allow it, it's legal. And I'm allowing it.

Enforcing this would be akin to, say, making a catcher remove a stud in his tongue

Are you going to tell him he can't do it with runners on?

Of course! It's explicitly a balk with runners on according to 6-2-4.

[JaxRolo]

Its explicitly an illegal pitch with no runners on.

[JaxRolo]

You have to use more than just the words on the page.

From the windup the rules tells us that he can move back, sideways and forward.

The SET position does not say you can do this.

So when you read both rules you should reasonably deduct that it is illegal from the set.

[ALStripes17]

You have to use more than just the words on the page.

From the windup the rules tells us that he can move back, sideways and forward.

The SET position does not say you can do this.

So when you read both rules you should reasonably deduct that it is illegal from the set.

Using more than the words on the page would be 'implicit' Rolo :P

[JaxRolo]

Hey I'm Cuban! I don't know these fancy words!

[Jimurray]

If I allow it, it's legal. And I'm allowing it.

Enforcing this would be akin to, say, making a catcher remove a stud in his tongue

Are you going to tell him he can't do it with runners on? Of course! It's explicitly a balk with runners on according to 6-2-4.

What's the explicit balk?

[ALStripes17]

If I allow it, it's legal. And I'm allowing it.

Enforcing this would be akin to, say, making a catcher remove a stud in his tongue

Are you going to tell him he can't do it with runners on?

Of course! It's explicitly a balk with runners on according to 6-2-4.

What's the explicit balk?

6-2-4a. Feinting to first base.

[Jimurray]

If I allow it, it's legal. And I'm allowing it.

Enforcing this would be akin to, say, making a catcher remove a stud in his tongue

Are you going to tell him he can't do it with runners on?Of course! It's explicitly a balk with runners on according to 6-2-4. What's the explicit balk? 6-2-4a. Feinting to first base.

So a lefty can pitch that way?

[Richvee]

Just to reiterate from the facebook thread. 100% hybrid once he rocks with both hands together in front of his body, and one one foot clearly in front of the rubber. 

[Recontra]

Not saying you'd want to call time, declare an illegal pitch, and award a ball in an FED game for a pitcher doing this (seems like a lot of work for the PU to me), but here's an argument under the rules that might support an umpire who wants to practice those Illegal pitch signalling mechanics and have a long discussion with the DM afterwards:

 

While the general rule in baseball usually is that if it isn't expressly prohibited it's allowed, the exception applies in FED to what a pitcher can and cannot do with his feet, where he must place them and how he can and cannot move them.  The legal steps a pitcher can take are limited, and dependent upon whether he faces the batter from the set position or the windup position.  Only the windup position expressly permits a step sideways. 

 

"With his feet in the wind-up position, the pitcher may only deliver a pitch or step backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot first. During delivery, he may lift his non-pivot foot in a step forward, a step sideways, or in a step backward and a step forward, but he shall not otherwise lift either foot."

 

"During . . . the set position until a delivery motion occurs, the pitcher may turn on his pivot foot or lift it in a jump turn to step with the non-pivot foot toward a base while throwing or feinting as outlined in 6-2-4 and 2-28-5, or he may lift his pivot foot in a step backward off the pitcher's plate which must be in or partially within the 24-inch length of the pitcher's plate. In order to change to the wind-up position, he must first step clearly backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot first."  Why would the rules tell you how to change to the windup position if you could do a "wind up" from the set position?

 

But if you don't declare an illegal pitch with nobody on, maybe there's no need to balk him with runners on either if he does it for two (only half serious) reasons. If he establishes that his step toward 1st (or 3rd for a lefty) is a motion associated with his pitching motion, and if he then throws to 1st, then he's balked as well, because he was committed to the pitch when he threw to 1st.  On the other hand, R-1 is already going to be at 2nd as soon as he takes that rocker step (just like he started a wind up), and if he's already throwing 92, he'll learn quick.  There will be no need to say, "You, second base!"  Hell, that runner is already going to be there by the time you call time.  "You, stay there!" will be more like it.

[ricka56]

I still haven't seen anyone point to a rule that makes this illegal. Faking to 1B would be a balk if there were runners on (6-2-4), but you can't import 6-2-4 into a no runners on sitch. Rule 6-1-2 (windup) says that F1 "must continue the motion without interruption or alteration" but you can't import that rule into the set requirements either.  

 

If F1's foot was not parallel to the rubber, then that would be an illegal pitching position, but there is no rubber in the video, so we can't tell.

[Platejob29]

I still haven't seen anyone point to a rule that makes this illegal. Faking to 1B would be a balk if there were runners on (6-2-4), but you can't import 6-2-4 into a no runners on sitch. Rule 6-1-2 (windup) says that F1 "must continue the motion without interruption or alteration" but you can't import that rule into the set requirements either.

If F1's foot was not parallel to the rubber, then that would be an illegal pitching position, but there is no rubber in the video, so we can't tell.

Rick let's use our thinking caps for a second. As you alluded to eariler when a pitcher is using the wind up it must be a continuous uninterrupted motion, and this does not apply to the set position. So far so good. Now lets bring in the parallel to the rubber part of the whole stupid fed hybrid stance rule. It says he can't have his non pivot foot in front of the rubber if he's going from the wind up. I agree we can't see a rubber in the video but if we are using our thinking caps we know that his pivot foot for the set position as well as the wind up must be in contact with the rubber. In any possible circumstace would it be possible for a pitcher to assume the position in the video on an actual rubber and still have the non pivot foot parallel or behind the rubber and continue to make a pitch towards the plate? So now that we've established he can't possibly have it parallel or behind we know that if we are considering this to be a wind up it would be an illegal hybrid stance and therefore an illegal pitch. Now if we look at the other posibilty that we rule this to be the set position he makes a step after coming set and then continues to the plate and therefore we have an illegal pitch. (sorry to be a smart ass but sometimes I gotta help keep you grounded with a little taste of your own medicine. plus I just really enjoy being a smart ass.)

[JaxRolo]

I still haven't seen anyone point to a rule that makes this illegal. Faking to 1B would be a balk if there were runners on (6-2-4), but you can't import 6-2-4 into a no runners on sitch. Rule 6-1-2 (windup) says that F1 "must continue the motion without interruption or alteration" but you can't import that rule into the set requirements either.

If F1's foot was not parallel to the rubber, then that would be an illegal pitching position, but there is no rubber in the video, so we can't tell.

No need to point to a rule.

It's as obvious as it can get.

Illegal

[DVA7130]

Illegal pitch/balk. FED only with the foot position

[ricka56]

 

Rick let's use our thinking caps for a second. I had my thinking cap on and my rule book reading cap too...it looks funny but I never was a slave to fashion. As you alluded to eariler when a pitcher is using the wind up it must be a continuous uninterrupted motion, and this does not apply to the set position. So far so good. Now lets bring in the parallel to the rubber part of the whole stupid fed hybrid stance rule. It says he can't have his non pivot foot in front of the rubber if he's going from the wind up. I agree we can't see a rubber in the video but if we are using our thinking caps we know that his pivot foot for the set position as well as the wind up must be in contact with the rubber. In any possible circumstace would it be possible for a pitcher to assume the position in the video on an actual rubber and still have the non pivot foot parallel or behind the rubber and continue to make a pitch towards the plate? So now that we've established he can't possibly have it parallel or behind we know that if we are considering this to be a wind up it would be an illegal hybrid stance and therefore an illegal pitch. In my second paragraph, I said that if his pivot foot is not parallel, then it would be an illegal pitching position. Now if we look at the other posibilty that we rule this to be the set position My first paragraph assumed a legal set position. he makes a step after coming set and then continues to the plate and therefore we have an illegal pitch. If this was true, then you could cite the rule that makes it illegal.  (sorry to be a smart ass but sometimes I gotta help keep you grounded with a little taste of your own medicine. plus I just really enjoy being a smart ass.) Cite the rule, smartass.

No need to point to a rule. When coach asks for an explanation, rules are the only thing I've got.

It's as obvious as it can get. That explanation ain't gonna fly with a professional coach.

[JaxRolo]

 

 

Rick let's use our thinking caps for a second. I had my thinking cap on and my rule book reading cap too...it looks funny but I never was a slave to fashion. As you alluded to eariler when a pitcher is using the wind up it must be a continuous uninterrupted motion, and this does not apply to the set position. So far so good. Now lets bring in the parallel to the rubber part of the whole stupid fed hybrid stance rule. It says he can't have his non pivot foot in front of the rubber if he's going from the wind up. I agree we can't see a rubber in the video but if we are using our thinking caps we know that his pivot foot for the set position as well as the wind up must be in contact with the rubber. In any possible circumstace would it be possible for a pitcher to assume the position in the video on an actual rubber and still have the non pivot foot parallel or behind the rubber and continue to make a pitch towards the plate? So now that we've established he can't possibly have it parallel or behind we know that if we are considering this to be a wind up it would be an illegal hybrid stance and therefore an illegal pitch. In my second paragraph, I said that if his pivot foot is not parallel, then it would be an illegal pitching position. Now if we look at the other posibilty that we rule this to be the set position My first paragraph assumed a legal set position. he makes a step after coming set and then continues to the plate and therefore we have an illegal pitch. If this was true, then you could cite the rule that makes it illegal.  (sorry to be a smart ass but sometimes I gotta help keep you grounded with a little taste of your own medicine. plus I just really enjoy being a smart ass.) Cite the rule, smartass.

No need to point to a rule. When coach asks for an explanation, rules are the only thing I've got. I won't remember a cite on the field.

It's as obvious as it can get. That explanation ain't gonna fly with a professional coach.  Unfortunately I do not work pro ball

 

[ricka56]

 

No need to point to a rule. When coach asks for an explanation, rules are the only thing I've got. I won't remember a cite on the field. Citing chapter and verse is not required on the field, what is required is applying the correct rule and being able to succinctly paraphrase the rule if a question arises.  Citing chapter and verse is what we do when we're on an umpire forum.

It's as obvious as it can get. That explanation ain't gonna fly with a professional coach.  Unfortunately I do not work pro ball Neither do I, but I count SOME HS coaches and SOME tournament youth baseball coaches as professional...they'll eat you alive if you misapply/misstate a rule. 

[ALStripes17]

No need to point to a rule. When coach asks for an explanation, rules are the only thing I've got. I won't remember a cite on the field. Citing chapter and verse is not required on the field, what is required is applying the correct rule and being able to succinctly paraphrase the rule if a question arises. Citing chapter and verse is what we do when we're on an umpire forum. It's as obvious as it can get. That explanation ain't gonna fly with a professional coach. Unfortunately I do not work pro ball Neither do I, but I count SOME HS coaches and SOME tournament youth baseball coaches as professional...they'll eat you alive if you misapply/misstate a rule.

Ooh, pretty colors.

[goody14]

I still haven't seen anyone point to a rule that makes this illegal. Faking to 1B would be a balk if there were runners on (6-2-4), but you can't import 6-2-4 into a no runners on sitch. Rule 6-1-2 (windup) says that F1 "must continue the motion without interruption or alteration" but you can't import that rule into the set requirements either.  

 

You won't find it...but in this instance I believe that does not mean it is legal.

 

This whole thing reminds me of when FED came out and defined when you could turn your shoulders on the mound: http://www.ihsaa.org/archive/b-baseball/05RulesChanges.htm

 

Nowhere in the FED book will you find the phrase - "turning the shoulders while in the wind-up position is a balk".  But you will find the wording that turning the shoulder while in the set position is legal.  They want you to infer that the windup shoulder turn is illegal (and the quote in the link is FED coming out and stating this inference would be true).

 

Since they define the steps you can take in the windup yet leave them out of the section on the set.  I believe it is illegal to take an extra step in that position.  That's my story.

[JaxRolo]

 

No need to point to a rule. When coach asks for an explanation, rules are the only thing I've got. I won't remember a cite on the field. Citing chapter and verse is not required on the field, what is required is applying the correct rule and being able to succinctly paraphrase the rule if a question arises.  Citing chapter and verse is what we do when we're on an umpire forum.

It's as obvious as it can get. That explanation ain't gonna fly with a professional coach.  Unfortunately I do not work pro ball Neither do I, but I count SOME HS coaches and SOME tournament youth baseball coaches as professional...they'll eat you alive if you misapply/misstate a rule.

 

 

I just scored 100 on my state test. I don't have a problem with rules or applying the rules.

[Kevin_K]

I think this thread is mislabeled.

[DVA7130]

The feet dictate that this is the SET position. A "rocker step" is not legal from that position. With runners on, I would treat the rocker step as a step toward 1B (for RHP) and failure to throw: balk. With no runners on, this is an illegal pitch: ball.

 

I would treat it the same for amateur ball under OBR. I allow the hybrid stance + windup with no runners on, but if his feet say SET position with runners on, he has to be in the SET and respect its restrictions.

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free. From this position any natural

movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to

the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the

ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one

step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his pivot

foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate and his other foot free, he will be considered

in the Windup Position.

Rule 8.01(a) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is permitted to have his “free†foot

on the rubber, in front of the rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.

I have absolutely no problem with this in OBR.

[Replacematt]

 

The feet dictate that this is the SET position. A "rocker step" is not legal from that position. With runners on, I would treat the rocker step as a step toward 1B (for RHP) and failure to throw: balk. With no runners on, this is an illegal pitch: ball.

 

I would treat it the same for amateur ball under OBR. I allow the hybrid stance + windup with no runners on, but if his feet say SET position with runners on, he has to be in the SET and respect its restrictions.

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free. From this position any natural

movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to

the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the

ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one

step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his pivot

foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate and his other foot free, he will be considered

in the Windup Position.

Rule 8.01(a) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is permitted to have his “free†foot

on the rubber, in front of the rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.

I have absolutely no problem with this in OBR.

 

 

I do, unless you've got a contortionist. Find a pitcher that starts with this foot position that is also facing the batter.

[JaxRolo]

The feet dictate that this is the SET position. A "rocker step" is not legal from that position. With runners on, I would treat the rocker step as a step toward 1B (for RHP) and failure to throw: balk. With no runners on, this is an illegal pitch: ball.

I would treat it the same for amateur ball under OBR. I allow the hybrid stance + windup with no runners on, but if his feet say SET position with runners on, he has to be in the SET and respect its restrictions.

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free. From this position any natural

movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to

the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the

ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one

step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his pivot

foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate and his other foot free, he will be considered

in the Windup Position.

Rule 8.01(a) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is permitted to have his “free†foot

on the rubber, in front of the rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.

I have absolutely no problem with this in OBR.

Legal in OBR

FED illegal