Set? Windup? Not sure?

[Kevin_K]

I have never seen a pitcher do what I saw in yesterday’s FED game, which was 1/4 finals of county tourney. F1 for home team is the dominant pitcher in the county and has (had) an unblemished record as a sophomore. He has used this motion all year without anyone making him alter  it.

With no runners, righty F1 starts with his pivot foot parallel to the rubber with his non-pivot foot also parallel to the rubber at a comfortable shoulder’s width apart. While standing erect on the mound, with his torso facing 3B, he took his sign with his hands at his sides. He then brought his hands together as he raised them over his head, stepped back with his non-pivot foot, twisting his torso so that he was facing HP, and continued his delivery so that it appeared more like a windup than a set position.

With runners, he started in the same exact way, but he went through his windup in a traditional set position procedure.

Opposing coach wanted to know if the first scenario was legal. I told him that the delivery appeared to me to be a new wrinkle on the set position, but F1 was not doing anything specifically that violated any pitching restrictions because there were no stops and the motion was continuous. My partner and I discussed it and we both came to the same conclusion that weird did not equal illegal. Our view was that he was pitching from the set position in both scenarios.

Thoughts? Did we miss it?

Fire away!

[Jimurray]

I have never seen a pitcher do what I saw in yesterday’s FED game, which was 1/4 finals of county tourney. F1 for home team is the dominant pitcher in the county and has (had) an unblemished record as a sophomore. He has used this motion all year without anyone making him alter  it.

With no runners, righty F1 starts with his pivot foot parallel to the rubber with his non-pivot foot also parallel to the rubber at a comfortable shoulder’s width apart. While standing erect on the mound, with his torso facing 3B, he took his sign with his hands at his sides. He then brought his hands together as he raised them over his head, stepped back with his non-pivot foot, twisting his torso so that he was facing HP, and continued his delivery so that it appeared more like a windup than a set position.

With runners, he started in the same exact way, but he went through his windup in a traditional set position procedure.

Opposing coach wanted to know if the first scenario was legal. I told him that the delivery appeared to me to be a new wrinkle on the set position, but F1 was not doing anything specifically that violated any pitching restrictions because there were no stops and the motion was continuous. My partner and I discussed it and we both came to the same conclusion that weird did not equal illegal. Our view was that he was pitching from the set position in both scenarios.

Thoughts? Did we miss it?

Fire away!

 

​If you are calling what he does with no runners a windup, it would be an illegal foot position. If your calling it a set FED requires a stop somewhere. What do you mean by traditional windup in the set position?

[noumpere]

Sounds like the "hybrid" stance that FED made illegal last(?) year.

 

Hopefully FED will get rid of it like NCAA did -- it is being taught and (probably) doesn't fool / deceive anyone.

[Richvee]

I think I know what Kevin is saying, and we've discussed it here before. He can correct me if I have this motion wrong. 

With no runners on, F1 stretches and comes to a normal set position. However, when he starts his delivery, he takes a "rocker" step to the side with the free foot before lifting the leg and throwing home.  

I believe the board here was split on weather or not this was a hybrid motion. It's obvious if he does this with a runner on base it's a step to first and would be balked. My gut tells me this is a form of a hybrid delivery, but I think we really need an official interp from the FED on this. 

IMO, all this FED illegal hybrid BS could be done away with if they just allow a pitcher to throw to a base from the windup position like you can do everywhere else. Then, who cares if he starts is windup with the free foot in front of the rubber? 

[Kevin_K]

 What do you mean by traditional windup in the set position?

​A routine set position process...... get sign... come set...deliver pitch.

[ricka56]

Hopefully FED will get rid of it like NCAA did -- it is being taught and (probably) doesn't fool / deceive anyone.

​Fed can't get rid of this hybrid prohibition until they get rid of their throwing to a base from the windup prohibition.

[noumpere]

Sure they can.  They didn't add it until a couple of years ago, and they had the "no throwing from the windup" long before that.  No problems that I know of (other than the usual caused not by the rule but by inexperienced, over-zealous officials, perhaps)

 

Now, I would be in favor of eliminating both provisions.

[ricka56]

They could repeal the hybrid prohibition alone, but the reason for it (IMO) was to distinguish wind-up/set because there was a potential for a hybrid windup F1 throwing to a base without disengaging and then claiming that he was in a legal set position after an umpire balked him.  Not that I would buy that argument, but making the hybrid stance illegal took away that leg to stand on...that is if one was inclined to enforce it.

Edited May 11, 2015 by ricka56

[maven]

The reason FED needs to have a sharp distinction between set and windup is that there's something F1 may legally do from the set that he may not do from the windup.

That's not true for OBR.

[grayhawk]

I had the exact same thing in a winter ball game. It's not hybrid because his feet are in a legal set position. Ken Allan agreed with me that there is nothing in the rules that prohibits the rocker step. He said the rules committee had a spirited discussion about it a few years ago and they ultimately said it was okay. 

[Richvee]

I had the exact same thing in a winter ball game. It's not hybrid because his feet are in a legal set position. Ken Allan agreed with me that there is nothing in the rules that prohibits the rocker step. He said the rules committee had a spirited discussion about it a few years ago and they ultimately said it was okay. 

​This is what amazes me about FED. So the powers that be had a "Spirited discussion" and decided the rocker step from the set with no one on is OK. Maybe a memo or an interp or a POE covering this would have been a good idea instead of having the discussion and keeping it to themselves unless specifically asked. 

[Jimurray]

@grayhawk since my antique can not use java script to quote you. The OP had a pitcher in a legal set position so following FED rules wouldn't he have to have a stop which it appears he didn't do in the OP. FED has wrapped itself around the axle in this "hybrid" brouhaha. Before they made it a POE most regions of the country had no problem distinguishing what the pitcher was going to do no matter what his foot position was.

[grayhawk]

@grayhawk since my antique can not use java script to quote you. The OP had a pitcher in a legal set position so following FED rules wouldn't he have to have a stop which it appears he didn't do in the OP. FED has wrapped itself around the axle in this "hybrid" brouhaha. Before they made it a POE most regions of the country had no problem distinguishing what the pitcher was going to do no matter what his foot position was.

​In my case, the pitcher did come to a stop before making the rocker step.