Can he do that? (NFHS 6-1-2)

[Mad Mike]

Our Association is having a dandy time dealing with this topic, I would like to get some feedback on how this is handled. The situation is using a FED rule set under 6-1-2.

 

The discussion centers around the current fad of the pitcher standing in the windup position with THE HEELS OF BOTH FEET touching the front edge of the pitcher's plate prior to delivery. Can the pitcher legally deliver a pitch from this position? Our rule interpreter says no. However, a reading of the BRD Section 406 denotes, "In the windup position the pitcher must stand with his non-pivot foot on or behind a line extending through the FRONT EDGE of the pitcher's plate. (6-1-2) PENALTY: ball/balk if a pitch is delivered." Carl Childress notes that at a TASO state meeting in January 2010, he asked Kyle McNeely (NFHS Rules Committee Member): "Is that legal?" Answer: "Yes."

 

Several Association members indicated they recalled a picture or mechanigram showing this as illegal, while several others remember something very different (I am sure that sounds familiar to many of you on this website)!! Any help you can add to put this to rest would be appreciated.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[grayhawk]

Legal. 6-1-1 states that the pivot foot must be in contact with the pitcher's plate. With no further restrictions in 6-1-2 regarding the pivot foot in the wind-up, what you described is legal.

[BuckeyeMike]

I've been trained in accordance with the verbiage of the rule. 

 

The non-pivot foot has to break the plane of the front edge of the rubber. 

 

Legal

[Jimurray]

I've been trained in accordance with the verbiage of the rule.

The non-pivot foot has to break the plane of the front edge of the rubber.

Legal

Are you say tangent is not touching and is no good

[BuckeyeMike]

I BARELY passed geometry in 9th grade, so I'm not sure what you meant by "tangent", especially how you used it in that sentence, but I thought I was pretty clear.   

Or are you just messing with me?

The heel of the non-pivot foot has to break the plane of the front edge of the rubber.    No tangents, no parallels, no perpendiculars, no rhombuses, etc.  

[Jimurray]

I BARELY passed geometry in 9th grade, so I'm not sure what you meant by "tangent", especially how you used it in that sentence, but I thought I was pretty clear.

Or are you just messing with me?

The heel of the non-pivot foot has to break the plane of the front edge of the rubber. No tangents, no parallels, no perpendiculars, no rhombuses, etc.

You say you have been trained in accordance withe the verbiage of the rule which requires touching as opposed to breaking a plane. There was in a year past or two a pictogram which showed as legal the heel or heels of the pitcher resting on the front of the rubber a little bit and the heel or heels on the dirt in front of the rubber with the back of the heel or heels touching the front of the rubber as illegel. don't know where that came from but it is wrong by reading of the rule.

[BuckeyeMike]

I agree 100%.   It IS wrong by the reading of the rule.  

[johnnyg08]

Is this the graphic?

 

 

 

[JHSump]

6.1.1 says the pivot foot must touch the pitcher's plate. In the OP the heel of the pitcher's pivot foot is touching the pitcher's plate. Legal so far.

 

6.1.2 says the non-pivot foot shall be on or behind a line extending along the front edge of the pitcher's plate. In my reading of the OP the heal of the non-pivot foot is touching this line, and is therefore "on" this line. (And, yes the line is "tangent" to the heel.) So, I would say the pitcher's position is legal.

 

Besides, in a practical sense this difference between having his non-pivot heel just slightly behind that line vs touching the line (as in the OP) is very slight. What advantage is the pitcher gaining? And, would you really want to make a "federal" case about it during a game?

[BuckeyeMike]

I agree with all of that JHSump, as I said in post #3, the OP situation is legal.   I re-read everything this morning and I think I was misunderstanding what was being asked.  I think we're all saying the same thing. 

[Jimurray]

Is this the graphic?

No, actually I think it wasn't a picto gram. It was just a graphic. Maybe a quarter of an inch of heel contact on top of the front edge of the rubber.

Edited to add: upon further research, I found a 2012 thread where I, from TX and another poster from PA reference this graphic. We assumed it came from FED. Others thought our state interpreters were clueless. I actually beefed about this and was told it was for real. I thought it died a deserved death but apparantly it's been resurrected.

[Mick]

I have no idea where this referenced cartoon is from, but the pitcher's stance from the windup described by the OP is legal.  Period.