Legal Windup?

[tankmjg24]

HS baseball so FED rule set.  My association did a set of scrimmages this past weekend and one pitcher got a few of us discussing rather his windup was legal.  I have included a picture of his starting stance (it is a bit grainy as it is zoomed in).  Basically he was entirely behind the pitching plate with just his toes touching the backside of the pitching plate.  He would then step to the left with his non pivot foot having just his toes on the ground even with the pitching plate, then he would pick up his pivot put and place the toes on top of the pitching plate, then he would step to the front of the pitching plate with his pivot foot, and then bring his left leg up and throw.  There was some debate on rather or not he was picking up his pivot foot or sliding his pivot foot.

 Thoughts?  

[ElkOil]

I'd say it's illegal. I believe the pivot has to be on or in front of the front plane of the rubber (I may be wrong about that, though. There's no description in the rule, but a popular diagram shows it that way.)  But no matter what, the pitcher is limited how he can move his feet, and it sounds from your description like he violated that.

FED 6-1-2: 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.

[maineump]

That sounds like a wind-up for a pitcher that is pitching out of a hole in front of the rubber. Is that the case here?

[scrounge]

23 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

I'd say it's illegal. I believe the pivot has to be on or in front of the front plane of the rubber (I may be wrong about that, though. There's no description in the rule, but a popular diagram shows it that way.)  But no matter what, the pitcher is limited how he can move his feet, and it sounds from your description like he violated that.

FED 6-1-2: 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.

 

I think you're confusing the requirements for the non-pivot foot - which must be on or behind the front edge of the plate extended. The pivot foot merely needs to be on the plate somewhere, even if by a toe. Only in 6-1-3, requirements for the set, are restrictions on how the pivot foot specified.

Now, you are correct that he can't lift either foot, but I'm not about to zapruder a half-inch myself. It's commonplace for windup pitchers to slide to the front edge of the plate, esp as mounds get worn or chewed. As long as it's not obnoxious and he's not lifting it 3 inches over the ground or trying to sneak past the plate, I'm fine with this.

[ElkOil]

13 minutes ago, scrounge said:

 

I think you're confusing the requirements for the non-pivot foot - which must be on or behind the front edge of the plate extended. The pivot foot merely needs to be on the plate somewhere, even if by a toe. Only in 6-1-3, requirements for the set, are restrictions on how the pivot foot specified.

Now, you are correct that he can't lift either foot, but I'm not about to zapruder a half-inch myself. It's commonplace for windup pitchers to slide to the front edge of the plate, esp as mounds get worn or chewed. As long as it's not obnoxious and he's not lifting it 3 inches over the ground or trying to sneak past the plate, I'm fine with this.

Take a look at the diagram I was referencing. It doesn't say anything explicitly about the pivot foot, but it only shows is on the rubber and on/in front of the front plane.

 

[noumpere]

7 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Take a look at the diagram I was referencing. It doesn't say anything explicitly about the pivot foot, but it only shows is on the rubber and on/in front of the front plane.

That's because that's how 99.9% of pitchers start from the windup.  To read that this is required is reading too much into it.

 

In the OP, I'd say the *starting* position is legal, but it reads an awful lot like he is "running into the pitch" by moving the pivot foot forward 6" during the stepping process.

 

And, I don't know if it's deliberate or not, but this sentence:

"then he would pick up his pivot put and place the toes on top of the pitching plate, then he would step to the front of the pitching plate with his pivot foot,"

 

reads like two steps in a row with the pivot foot.

 

I'll give a turn -- even if that turn brings the "average" foot position closer to the plate, and long as no portion is (obviously) closer to the plate.  Kind of like the "opposite" of the distance and direction requirement on a balk.

[scrounge]

32 minutes ago, ElkOil said:

Take a look at the diagram I was referencing. It doesn't say anything explicitly about the pivot foot, but it only shows is on the rubber and on/in front of the front plane.

 

Ok...so? It clearly says the requirements...and the only thing required for the pivot foot is that it's in contact with the pitcher's plate. Again, I don't mean this unkindly, but it's exceedingly obvious that all those examples are designed to illustrate the 2nd point, that the NON-pivot has specific restrictions in the definition of the windup. Only in 6-1-3, requirements for the set, do we have restrictions on the pivot foot.

[ElkOil]

1 minute ago, scrounge said:

Ok...so? It clearly says the requirements...and the only thing required for the pivot foot is that it's in contact with the pitcher's plate. Again, I don't mean this unkindly, but it's exceedingly obvious that all those examples are designed to illustrate the 2nd point, that the NON-pivot has specific restrictions in the definition of the windup. Only in 6-1-3, requirements for the set, do we have restrictions on the pivot foot.

Yeah, I know. In my first post, I clearly stated I may be wrong because the diagram is the only reference I could find regarding the position of the pivot foot. But the pivot foot notwithstanding, there is an issue based on the OP about how the non-pivot foot moves, and that was really my point. We can disregard anything I said about the pivot foot that's incorrect because I wasn't sure in the first place.

[maven]

3 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

HS baseball so FED rule set.  ...  Basically he was entirely behind the pitching plate with just his toes touching the backside of the pitching plate.  

This sounds legal. 6-1-1 requires the pivot foot to be in contact with the plate. 6-1-2 requires the non-pivot to be on or behind the front edge of the plate extended.

3 hours ago, tankmjg24 said:

There was some debate on rather or not he was picking up his pivot foot or sliding his pivot foot.

That debate is moot. If he's stepping with his pivot, he's illegal, whether the foot lifts or slides. Sliding does not exonerate a step.

6-1-2 states: "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." We do not interpret the last clause too tightly: he can pick it up and set it down, he can pivot on it (it's called the 'pivot foot'), but if it leaves the footprint entirely, then you have an illegal pitch.

Standard approach for such an illegal pitch (including the hybrid position):

1. Grab it in warm-ups, and ask coach to fix it.
2. If you miss it there, call the illegal pitch during the first at bat: as soon as he steps with his pivot, the ball is dead, and a ball is added to the batter's count (whether or not F1 throws the ball).
3. Make sure coach and F1 understand what you called and why you called it. Calling 22 of these in a row and making everyone guess is probably bad game management.
4. If you haven't called it all game, I recommend not calling it with bases loaded in the 7th, winning run on 3B.

[ElkOil]

52 minutes ago, maven said:

This sounds legal. 6-1-1 requires the pivot foot to be in contact with the plate. 6-1-2 requires the non-pivot to be on or behind the front edge of the plate extended.

That debate is moot. If he's stepping with his pivot, he's illegal, whether the foot lifts or slides. Sliding does not exonerate a step.

6-1-2 states: "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." We do not interpret the last clause too tightly: he can pick it up and set it down, he can pivot on it (it's called the 'pivot foot'), but if it leaves the footprint entirely, then you have an illegal pitch.

Standard approach for such an illegal pitch (including the hybrid position):

1. Grab it in warm-ups, and ask coach to fix it.
2. If you miss it there, call the illegal pitch during the first at bat: as soon as he steps with his pivot, the ball is dead, and a ball is added to the batter's count (whether or not F1 throws the ball).
3. Make sure coach and F1 understand what you called and why you called it. Calling 22 of these in a row and making everyone guess is probably bad game management.
4. If you haven't called it all game, I recommend not calling it with bases loaded in the 7th, winning run on 3B.

Let me ask you to expound a bit, if you would. I understand and agree with this, so my question is more philosophical about where you (and others) draw the line between proactively addressing an issue, that were you to let it go until the ball is in play, would benefit one team. Let's say as the pitcher is warming up, the offense sees this and starts to salivate because they know that if you call it, it's going to go their way -- or let's say the OC even brings it to your attention during warm-ups!

Do you mention it before it works against the defense, thus taking away an advantage for the offense?

[Richvee]

I know it's MLB.... Serious question though...does FED allow this pivot foot slide? 

 

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I know it's MLB.... Serious question though...does FED allow this pivot foot slide? 

 

The rule requirement to not lift the pivot foot is only to prevent "running into the pitch". Lifting of the pivot foot to reposition in the windup is common. Some pitchers have a noticeable lift. As long as you don't judge an advantage of momentum (running into the pitch) I wouldn't be concerned with the pivot foot losing contact in the reposition.

[ALStripes17]

Let me ask you to expound a bit, if you would. I understand and agree with this, so my question is more philosophical about where you (and others) draw the line between proactively addressing an issue, that were you to let it go until the ball is in play, would benefit one team. Let's say as the pitcher is warming up, the offense sees this and starts to salivate because they know that if you call it, it's going to go their way -- or let's say the OC even brings it to your attention during warm-ups!

Do you mention it before it works against the defense, thus taking away an advantage for the offense?

You have brought up the advantage route a few times now, and I understand your point; however, preventive officiating is a standard practice and accepted at all levels. The point is to not let things become an issue. The game should be decided by the team that plays better under foundational principles, not on a technical "Gotcha" moment.

In saying that, if a rule violation does occur, then you have to penalize it accordingly. The whole gist is to prevent that sort of violation. The courtesy is provided to both sides.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

3 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

You have brought up the advantage route a few times now, and I understand your point; however, preventive officiating is a standard practice and accepted at all levels. The point is to not let things become an issue. The game should be decided by the team that plays better under foundational principles, not on a technical "Gotcha" moment.

In saying that, if a rule violation does occur, then you have to penalize it accordingly. The whole gist is to prevent that sort of violation. The courtesy is provided to both sides.

This.

It's akin to putting the ball in play in basketball with 6 players on the court. I count every time, and if I see 6 I won't put it in play. But ultimate responsibility for the infraction lies with the team, not with me.

Also: it's preventive officiating when I tell him not to do that. It's coaching when I tell him what to do instead.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

The rule requirement to not lift the pivot foot is only to prevent "running into the pitch". Lifting of the pivot foot to reposition in the windup is common. Some pitchers have a noticeable lift. As long as you don't judge an advantage of momentum (running into the pitch) I wouldn't be concerned with the pivot foot losing contact in the reposition.

I agree.

 

1 hour ago, ElkOil said:

he can pick it up and set it down, he can pivot on it (it's called the 'pivot foot'), but if it leaves the footprint entirely, then you have an illegal pitch.

This  comment is what made me think about Street.

[noumpere]

14 hours ago, maven said:

1. If you haven't called it all game, I recommend not calling it with bases loaded in the 7th, winning tying run on 3B.

FIFY. 

[grayhawk]

15 hours ago, maven said:

This sounds legal. 6-1-1 requires the pivot foot to be in contact with the plate. 6-1-2 requires the non-pivot to be on or behind the front edge of the plate extended.

That debate is moot. If he's stepping with his pivot, he's illegal, whether the foot lifts or slides. Sliding does not exonerate a step.

6-1-2 states: "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." We do not interpret the last clause too tightly: he can pick it up and set it down, he can pivot on it (it's called the 'pivot foot'), but if it leaves the footprint entirely, then you have an illegal pitch.

Standard approach for such an illegal pitch (including the hybrid position):

1. Grab it in warm-ups, and ask coach to fix it.
2. If you miss it there, call the illegal pitch during the first at bat: as soon as he steps with his pivot, the ball is dead, and a ball is added to the batter's count (whether or not F1 throws the ball).
3. Make sure coach and F1 understand what you called and why you called it. Calling 22 of these in a row and making everyone guess is probably bad game management.
4. If you haven't called it all game, I recommend not calling it with bases loaded in the 7th, winning run on 3B.
5. Be prepared for the coach to tell you that you're the first umpire that has mentioned it all year.

 

[grayhawk]

14 hours ago, ElkOil said:

Let me ask you to expound a bit, if you would. I understand and agree with this, so my question is more philosophical about where you (and others) draw the line between proactively addressing an issue, that were you to let it go until the ball is in play, would benefit one team. Let's say as the pitcher is warming up, the offense sees this and starts to salivate because they know that if you call it, it's going to go their way -- or let's say the OC even brings it to your attention during warm-ups!

Do you mention it before it works against the defense, thus taking away an advantage for the offense?

I addressed a pitcher using the hybrid in his warm ups this season.  Of course, according to the coach, I was the first umpire that said anything about it so far this season.  The other team didn't say a word about me being proactive on this, and I did inform their coach what I was doing.  Only a real rat would make an issue out of this.

[maven]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I addressed a pitcher using the hybrid in his warm ups this season.  Of course, according to the coach, I was the first umpire that said anything about it so far this season.  The other team didn't say a word about me being proactive on this, and I did inform their coach what I was doing.  Only a real rat would make an issue out of this.

If a coach challenged me on fixing a pitching stance in warm-ups ("hey, that's coaching!"), I might also distinguish between pro ball and amateur ball. Pro ball by culture allows far fewer opportunities (though not zero) for preventive officiating.

Even HS varsity is instructional (even, we might hope, beyond baseball), and umpires and coaches can work together at amateur levels to promote compliance with the rules as part of learning the game. As a game management tool, I look for every opportunity to frame possible confrontation with a coach as an opportunity to collaborate (on safety, modeling respect for the game, promoting good sportsmanship, playing by the rules, etc.). Most coaches quickly realize that some things are more important than getting ball 1 for their first batter. Not every coach avails himself of those opportunities, of course, but then it's even more obvious who's at fault when somebody has to leave.

NCAA is intermediate: do whatever your supervisor wants!

[stkjock]

watching a NCCA replay game this morning, Georgia vs Fl, the GT pitcher has a interesting windup.

 

if you have ESPN - watchESPN has a replay, skip to about 13 mins, bot of the first to check it out.  F1 lifts and moves both feet when delivering this pitch: 

 

http://espn.go.com/watchespn/player/_/id/2758353/

[noumpere]

Wow.  I'd guess we'll get a video interp of this from the NCAA.  It sure seems illegal to me.

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Wow.  I'd guess we'll get a video interp of this from the NCAA.  It sure seems illegal to me.

Absolutely illegal. His pivot foot is 6-8 inches from the rubber!

[stkjock]

17 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Wow.  I'd guess we'll get a video interp of this from the NCAA.  It sure seems illegal to me.

 

8 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Absolutely illegal. His pivot foot is 6-8 inches from the rubber!

you gents are talking about the GT pitcher in my link?

[grayhawk]

Just now, stkjock said:

 

you gents are talking about the GT pitcher in my link?

Yes.

[maven]

NCAA 9-1a: "The Windup. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, with the pivot foot on or in front of and touching the pitcher’s plate with the other foot free....

PENALTY—Warning on first offense. Illegal pitch shall be called on subsequent offenses."

Dollars to donuts, the ACC supervisor has told umpires to allow this. Whether that wins the day nationally is another matter.