Legal pitching motion?

[johnnyg08]

Does rule set matter?  OBR?  FED?  NCAA?  

Coach comes out and says, he can't pitch like that? 

How do you respond?  Ready, set, go...

[Richvee]

We've talked about this a few times.I don't thin we've ever reached an agreement, or even a consensus one way or another. My take....

Illegal in FED. He's setting up with one foot in front of the rubber. That, in and of itself means he can't "wind up" in FED. The rocker step makes it "hybrid.

Legal in OBR.   No restriction on the free foot to wind up.

Men on base. Balk everywhere. That's a step to first then a pitch.

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, Richvee said:

Legal in OBR.   No restriction on the free foot to wind up.

Men on base. Balk everywhere. That's a step to first then a pitch.

Your last two statements seem contradictory.  If it's a windup (the first statement) then a step is allowed (and will likely result in an easy stolen base).

 

Some "authoritative opinions" even allow the step from the set (but treat it as a motion to pitch, so it's to the offense's advantage).

 

So, I have it as a legal windup in OBR and NCAA, and an illegal set position in FED (because of the hands being together).  How strictly the FED part gets enforced will vary by area.

[maven]

6 minutes ago, noumpere said:

... and an illegal hybrid in FED (because of the hands being together).  How strictly the FED part gets enforced will vary by area.

This part can't be quite right. The feet determine the position, and F1's feet in the video are legally in the set: as far as I can see, the pivot is parallel to, in contact with, and completely within the length of the rubber, and the free foot is in front of the plane of the front edge. That's a legal set, not an illegal hybrid position.

Taking the rubber with his hands together does violate the second sentence of 6-1-3 (requiring that he engage the rubber with his hands apart), but fixing that (it's a "don't do that," even in FED, at least for me) won't address the legality of a rocker step.

[noumpere]

Yes -- sorry -- I meant illegal set in FEd, but the fingers types hybrid.  I fixed it.

[Jimurray]

12 hours ago, Richvee said:

We've talked about this a few times.I don't thin we've ever reached an agreement, or even a consensus one way or another. My take....

Illegal in FED. He's setting up with one foot in front of the rubber. That, in and of itself means he can't "wind up" in FED. The rocker step makes it "hybrid.

Legal in OBR.   No restriction on the free foot to wind up.

Men on base. Balk everywhere. That's a step to first then a pitch.

So with bases loaded a normal windup pitcher will be balked for taking a backwards step to 2B?

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Your last two statements seem contradictory.  If it's a windup (the first statement) then a step is allowed (and will likely result in an easy stolen base).

 

Some "authoritative opinions" even allow the step from the set (but treat it as a motion to pitch, so it's to the offense's advantage).

 

So, I have it as a legal windup in OBR and NCAA, and an illegal set position in FED (because of the hands being together).  How strictly the FED part gets enforced will vary by area.

I have it as legal in OBR and I don't know in NCAA. They seem to not be happy with what ensued with the rule change or the confusion some umpires might have.

"

There have been a few questions on pitchers being either in the windup or set positions before delivering a pitch. The 2015 rule change that allowed the non-pivot foot to be “free” in the windup position gave the pitchers some options in the initial position of their feet, but have made it more difficult to tell if they were using the windup or set positon. In the windup, the pitcher “shall stand facing the batter”; in the set position, the pitcher “stands with his chest generally facing the respective foul lines” and the “free foot in front of the pivot foot”. In the set position, the pitcher has to hold the ball in both hands in front of the body and come to a complete and discernible stop. If he chooses to pitch from a set positon with no runners on base, the pitcher does not need to come to a complete stop but still cannot make a quick pitch. "

[johnnyg08]

So let's say that he decides to not use the rocker step after using the rocker every time for the last 4 batters, then does the exact same thing, except goes w/ the slide step.

Are we still legal?  Sure...right? Unless of course we were to judge a quick pitch. 

The piece above, which I've also read, states more about how he must face a base and what he does with his hands, not necessarily what he does w/ his feet after he begins his delivery.

So far we have nothing concrete about it being illegal in NCAA.

 

[scrounge]

13 hours ago, Richvee said:

 

Illegal in FED. He's setting up with one foot in front of the rubber. That, in and of itself means he can't "wind up" in FED. The rocker step makes it "hybrid.

 

So...not to necessarily pick solely on this post, but why is this motion illegal in FED? Feet position define the hybrid/windup/set from a positioning perspective, not the existence or lack thereof of a rocker step. Clearly, it 'looks' like a windup, but what actually makes it illegal?

[maven]

24 minutes ago, scrounge said:

So...not to necessarily pick solely on this post, but why is this motion illegal in FED? Feet position define the hybrid/windup/set from a positioning perspective, not the existence or lack thereof of a rocker step. Clearly, it 'looks' like a windup, but what actually makes it illegal?

Quite simply: it's illegal by interpretation. Some folks interpret the rocker step in the set as an illegal step toward a base without a throw (which would be a feint to 1B or 3B; the latter is legal in FED, but F1 cannot subsequently pitch to the batter without re-engaging). We won't have authoritative guidance until we do, in the form of a rule "clarification" or case play.

The primary rationale for the interpretation, as I have written before, derives from the rationale for having 2 pitching positions (why not just 1?). Pitchers generally pitch better from the windup, which allows them better leverage and a more deliberate, consistent motion. Pitchers put runners out more often when they pitch from the set (both pickoffs and caught stealing), as they're quicker to the plate and can pick from the set. To prohibit either position would disadvantage the defense.

So we allow 2 positions, but we require them to be distinct. The problem with allowing the rocker step in the set is that it gives F1 the advantages of winding up while making runners liable to being picked: it disrupts the balance created by the existing pitching rules.

Treating the rocker step as committing F1 to pitch is an interesting idea (someone mentioned it above), but it creates a problem. Consider F1 starting his rocker step, then in an uninterrupted motion pivoting on it and throwing to the base behind him. (This is actually a pretty good and relatively easy move — try it at home!) That would certainly seem to satisfy the requirements of stepping and throwing to a base, so if we required F1 to pitch from a rocker step, we would end up with a situation where some step/throws are legal and some are not. Too hard to officiate, and FED won't buy it.

FWIW: my money is on FED making a rocker step illegal in the set. Perhaps @lawump will add this to his growing list of topics to take to the rules meetings. In the meantime, enjoy: however you call it, you're right (for now)!

[scrounge]

14 minutes ago, maven said:

Quite simply: it's illegal by interpretation. Some folks interpret the rocker step in the set as an illegal step toward a base without a throw (which would be a feint to 1B or 3B; the latter is legal in FED, but F1 cannot subsequently pitch to the batter without re-engaging). We won't have authoritative guidance until we do, in the form of a rule "clarification" or case play.

The primary rationale for the interpretation, as I have written before, derives from the rationale for having 2 pitching positions (why not just 1?). Pitchers generally pitch better from the windup, which allows them better leverage and a more deliberate, consistent motion. Pitchers put runners out more often when they pitch from the set (both pickoffs and caught stealing), as they're quicker to the plate and can pick from the set. To prohibit either position would disadvantage the defense.

So we allow 2 positions, but we require them to be distinct. The problem with allowing the rocker step in the set is that it gives F1 the advantages of winding up while making runners liable to being picked: it disrupts the balance created by the existing pitching rules.

Treating the rocker step as committing F1 to pitch is an interesting idea (someone mentioned it above), but it creates a problem. Consider F1 starting his rocker step, then in an uninterrupted motion pivoting on it and throwing to the base behind him. (This is actually a pretty good and relatively easy move — try it at home!) That would certainly seem to satisfy the requirements of stepping and throwing to a base, so if we required F1 to pitch from a rocker step, we would end up with a situation where some step/throws are legal and some are not. Too hard to officiate, and FED won't buy it.

FWIW: my money is on FED making a rocker step illegal in the set. Perhaps @lawump will add this to his growing list of topics to take to the rules meetings. In the meantime, enjoy: however you call it, you're right (for now)!

Absolutely agree on the philosophy, just interesting that it really isn't addressed at all by either rule book or case book. Maybe no one ever envisioned this motion, but it's in a limbo where logically - as stated above - it isn't legal. But it can't quite be proven beyond implication that it isn't.

[grayhawk]

I emailed Ken Allan this video and he said that he's okay with it.  I asked him to comment only on the rocker step and not the pitcher engaging the rubber with his hands together.  He agreed that the pitcher is in a legal set position, and this is not a hybrid.

[Richvee]

10 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So with bases loaded a normal windup pitcher will be balked for taking a backwards step to 2B?

No. A normal windup is allowed a step with the free foot before delivering the pitch.

As far as I'm concerned, the OP is, for lack of a better term, "winding up from a set position". In FED the wind up must happen with the free foot touching or in line with the front of the rubber. It can't be in front. Therefore, once a FED pitcher takes a step to the side with the free foot starting in front of the rubber, I would consider it illegal. Ken Allen says it's OK. My association rules interpreter said he can't understand how it could be legal under FED rules.

Let me also ask this. If you're allowing this windup, are you allowing it with runners on? So with runners on we don't know if he's in a set or windup until he moves his free foot?

This is also the motion that was called a balk in MLB out in SF this spring when the pitcher did this with the bases loaded.

[johnnyg08]

40 minutes ago, Richvee said:

No. A normal windup is allowed a step with the free foot before delivering the pitch.

As far as I'm concerned, the OP is, for lack of a better term, "winding up from a set position". In FED the wind up must happen with the free foot touching or in line with the front of the rubber. It can't be in front. Therefore, once a FED pitcher takes a step to the side with the free foot starting in front of the rubber, I would consider it illegal. Ken Allen says it's OK. My association rules interpreter said he can't understand how it could be legal under FED rules.

Let me also ask this. If you're allowing this windup, are you allowing it with runners on? So with runners on we don't know if he's in a set or windup until he moves his free foot?

This is also the motion that was called a balk in MLB out in SF this spring when the pitcher did this with the bases loaded.

I'm struggling to find anything that says that F1 can't use a rocker step from the set.  Certainly to those who say that he can't do that I must be missing something in the rules.

 

[Richvee]

12 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'm struggling to find anything that says that F1 can't use a rocker step from the set.  Certainly to those who say that he can't do that I must be missing something in the rules.

 

From 6-1-2 The windup- "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,".......If he is allowed to take a step sideways, or back with the free foot in either the set or windup, why would it specifically say he may do this in rule 6-1-2? If it were legal from both the set and windup, there would be no need to specify this is legal from the windup. and omit the same sentence in 6-1-3.

[Jimurray]

This whole issue seems to be generating more confusion among umpires than runners. We need to have some runners chime in at FED, NCAA, OBR levels. Unless there are no runners when this happens. Then we need coaches to chime in. Never mind.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

From 6-1-2 The windup- "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,".......If he is allowed to take a step sideways, or back with the free foot in either the set or windup, why would it specifically say he may do this in rule 6-1-2? If it were legal from both the set and windup, there would be no need to specify this is legal from the windup. and omit the same sentence in 6-1-3.

Agree, but it doesn't say that its not permitted out of the set.  Usually we operate under the premise that if the rules don't prohibit, then it's legal.

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Agree, but it doesn't say that its not permitted out of the set.  Usually we operate under the premise that if the rules don't prohibit, then it's legal.

That's true. My only point being in this case, then why mention it one delivery rule and not the other?

One thing we all agree on...some case plays/official interps would be nice.