pitcher "double leg pump"

[jms1425]

I was working some fall ball today, and a pitcher asked me about the "double leg pump" move. In the windup, the pitcher gets on his pivot foot, raises his knee as he reaches his balance point, drops the foot as though coming to the plate, then raises the knee upward again, then delivers the pitch.

I remembered the video "2019 Video Bulletin #7 - April 19, 2019" on NCAA Central Hub on Arbiter, and told him it was illegal, but after rewatching the video, I am uncertain if it's illegal because it is considered a violation of the "without alteration" part of the rule, or the "without interruption" phrase.

The video simply marks it with a caption that says "illegal pitch." But is it illegal because it is an "alteration" from the featured pitcher's usual delivery (that is, if he did the double leg pump every time, it would be ok), or because the second pump is considered an "interruption" to his delivery?

[The Man in Blue]

I don’t understand the crap pitchers want to do ... 

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

I don’t understand the crap pitchers want to do ... 

Nether does NCAA

[Rich Ives]

On 9/25/2019 at 11:15 PM, jms1425 said:

I was working some fall ball today, and a pitcher asked me about the "double leg pump" move. In the windup, the pitcher gets on his pivot foot, raises his knee as he reaches his balance point, drops the foot as though coming to the plate, then raises the knee upward again, then delivers the pitch.

I remembered the video "2019 Video Bulletin #7 - April 19, 2019" on NCAA Central Hub on Arbiter, and told him it was illegal, but after rewatching the video, I am uncertain if it's illegal because it is considered a violation of the "without alteration" part of the rule, or the "without interruption" phrase.

The video simply marks it with a caption that says "illegal pitch." But is it illegal because it is an "alteration" from the featured pitcher's usual delivery (that is, if he did the double leg pump every time, it would be ok), or because the second pump is considered an "interruption" to his delivery?

No rule requires a pitcher to follow a "usual delivery".  They can alter it every pitch. 

[Rich Ives]

And still no one has said why it's illegal - if it is.

[jms1425]

The video cites 9-1-a:

"From this position, any natural movement associated with the delivery of the ball to the batter commits the pitcher to pitch without interruption or alteration. "

And there's this....

Rule 9-3:

"A balk shall be called for the following action by a pitcher:

Art. g.

Failing to throw to the batter immediately after making any motion with any part of the body such as the pitcher habitually uses in the delivery;"

 

Taken together, does this mean the double pump is illegal because it is an "alteration" to what the "pitcher habitually uses"?

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, jms1425 said:

The video cites 9-1-a:

"From this position, any natural movement associated with the delivery of the ball to the batter commits the pitcher to pitch without interruption or alteration. "

And there's this....

Rule 9-3:

"A balk shall be called for the following action by a pitcher:

Art. g.

Failing to throw to the batter immediately after making any motion with any part of the body such as the pitcher habitually uses in the delivery;"

 

Taken together, does this mean the double pump is illegal because it is an "alteration" to what the "pitcher habitually uses"?

Somebody needs to tell MLB that their umps are letting a bunch of MLB pitchers violate the literal letter of the rule. Or maybe NCAA needs to back off that interp.

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

No rule requires a pitcher to follow a "usual delivery".  They can alter it every pitch. 

And yet ...

7 hours ago, jms1425 said:

The video cites 9-1-a:

"From this position, any natural movement associated with the delivery of the ball to the batter commits the pitcher to pitch without interruption or alteration. "

And there's this....

Rule 9-3:

"A balk shall be called for the following action by a pitcher:

Art. g.

Failing to throw to the batter immediately after making any motion with any part of the body such as the pitcher habitually uses in the delivery;"

 

Taken together, does this mean the double pump is illegal because it is an "alteration" to what the "pitcher habitually uses"?

 

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Somebody needs to tell MLB that their umps are letting a bunch of MLB pitchers violate the literal letter of the rule. Or maybe NCAA needs to back off that interp.

I don’t understand the crap MLB allows their pitchers to do ... 

[Rich Ives]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

And yet ...

 

No.

 

[The Man in Blue]

34 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

No.

 

 

Compelling argument.  

[agdz59]

43 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

No.

 

No what?

How do you define 'habitually'?  I'm going to define it as something done repeatedly.  Sure seems to me it mean something close to 'usually'.   What is your reason for asserting there is no rule stating a pitcher has to follow a pattern when it clearly, explicitly mentions motions 'habitually used in their delivery'?

[maven]

19 hours ago, jms1425 said:

The video cites 9-1-a:

"From this position, any natural movement associated with the delivery of the ball to the batter commits the pitcher to pitch without interruption or alteration. "

And there's this....

Rule 9-3:

"A balk shall be called for the following action by a pitcher:

Art. g.

Failing to throw to the batter immediately after making any motion with any part of the body such as the pitcher habitually uses in the delivery;"

 

Taken together, does this mean the double pump is illegal because it is an "alteration" to what the "pitcher habitually uses"?

I don't generally post in the NCAA forum, but these provisions are in all codes, so...

These two rules cannot be assembled a single rule because they concern different acts. One concerns a pitch, the other a pick.

The first is a restriction on how F1 delivers a PITCH: the constraint is "without interruption or alteration," which prohibits stopping and starting (among other things) during a PITCH.

The second is a restriction on how F1 PICKS: the constraint prohibits motion that F1 habitually uses to pitch (if any) that then leads to a pick. Moreover, such habitual motion is an EXAMPLE of prohibited motion (signaled by "such as"). The constraint concerns how F1 may PICK.

Note that no rule requires F1 to have a habitual motion. If a reliever, for instance, throws 25 pitches in a game, every delivery can be different (though that might be challenging!).

If NCAA wishes to prohibit this kind of windup by interpretation, they can just say that it counts as illegal "alteration" under their delivery constraints. Done.

[agdz59]

@maven, thanks for the explanation. Makes sense.

I'd like to see MLB tighten up the rules to restrict the herky-jerky motions that are becoming more prevelant.  After all, pitchers use them to put off both runner and batter, which is the reason for the balk rule in the first place. It would help to bring back the running game.

IMO. YMMV.