New interp?

[Tborze]

Anyone else see or hear about this?

http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/2024%20Baseball%20%20Bulletin%205(1).pdf

[834k3r]

4 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Anyone else see or hear about this?

http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/2024%20Baseball%20%20Bulletin%205(1).pdf

So PA pitchers are using the Set position, but using Windup mechanics? Is that what I'm reading?

If my reading is accurate I've not seen anything remotely similar out here, nor is it an issue for any of the games I've worked.

[Tborze]

24 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

So PA pitchers are using the Set position, but using Windup mechanics? Is that what I'm reading?

If my reading is accurate I've not seen anything remotely similar out here, nor is it an issue for any of the games I've worked.

I don’t think it’s PA. Seems Hopkins agrees. 
NFHS has approved the true hybrid?!

[UMP45]

38 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

So PA pitchers are using the Set position, but using Windup mechanics? Is that what I'm reading?

If my reading is accurate I've not seen anything remotely similar out here, nor is it an issue for any of the games I've worked.

It's the motion that Spencer Strider, of the Braves, uses.

[Jimurray]

14 minutes ago, Tborze said:

I don’t think it’s PA. Seems Hopkins agrees. 
NFHS has approved the true hybrid?!

That's a regular hybrid with the pivot foot almost but not exactly parallel, thus being legal as a windup with an angular pivot foot position. A few more degrees of pivot position and it would be the set and illegal. We see many hybrids with an extreme angle but still not parallel. You usually can see the difference because in the windup you will see that close to parallel foot actually turn a little more to become parallel to push off during the delivery. You can even see that slight rotation in the OP video.

[Jimurray]

27 minutes ago, UMP45 said:

It's the motion that Spencer Strider, of the Braves, uses.

Strider has a true parallel pivot foot position but has the same "subtle" pivot foot reposition in his delivery from the windup. Hopkins was referring to the same as "we would not call that subtle adjustment of his" PIVOT "foot an illegal pitch." My  bold added. That went completely over PIAA's head and they mistakenly thought he was allowing a windup from the set. 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

That's a regular hybrid with the pivot foot almost but not exactly parallel, thus being legal as a windup with an angular pivot foot position. A few more degrees of pivot position and it would be the set and illegal. We see many hybrids with an extreme angle but still not parallel. You usually can see the difference because in the windup you will see that close to parallel foot actually turn a little more to become parallel to push off during the delivery. You can even see that slight rotation in the OP video.

You don't think that kid's foot in that video is parallel to start? If we're gonna get down to the 1/2 of a degree of angle, I'm allowing it and I'm gonna say he's not exactly parallel every time, every day. 

[Richvee]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

Anyone else see or hear about this?

http://www.piaa.org/assets/web/documents/2024%20Baseball%20%20Bulletin%205(1).pdf

Well, that certainly re-muddies the water. So now we're gonna let him wind up from parallel so as long as his hands aren't together when he engages? Seems to me,  for the sake of simplicity, if we're not going to insist the pitcher declare windup with runners on base, if we let him take the parallel position, with his hands together instead of apart, that would be a good indicator he was winding up.  

[Jimurray]

24 minutes ago, Richvee said:

You don't think that kid's foot in that video is parallel to start? If we're gonna get down to the 1/2 of a degree of angle, I'm allowing it and I'm gonna say he's not exactly parallel every time, every day. 

 

19 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Well, that certainly re-muddies the water. So now we're gonna let him wind up from parallel so as long as his hands aren't together when he engages? Seems to me,  for the sake of simplicity, if we're not going to insist the pitcher declare windup with runners on base, if we let him take the parallel position, with his hands together instead of apart, that would be a good indicator he was winding up.  

There are two keys for me for allowing a windup from pitchers such as in the OP. 1. There is an angular change in the pivot foot during delivery. 2. Their set is obviously different.  I haven't seen a pitcher that I could not determine his set vs. windup but I have seen 1 MLB pitcher who comes close. I don't know what PIAA asked Hopkins but his response seems to be that the subtle rotation or stutter of the pivot foot is not a violation of "not otherwise lift either foot". The free foot movement in the OP windup is not "subtle". Whatever PIAA asked Hopkins, his answer is not about the windup and I don't think FED umpires should use the PIAA's misinterpretation of Hopkin's answer. 

[BigBlue4u]

29 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Well, that certainly re-muddies the water. So now we're gonna let him wind up from parallel so as long as his hands aren't together when he engages? Seems to me,  for the sake of simplicity, if we're not going to insist the pitcher declare windup with runners on base, if we let him take the parallel position, with his hands together instead of apart, that would be a good indicator he was winding up.  

What am I missing? If a pitcher's pivot is parallel with the pitcher's plate he is in a set.  If his pivot foot is not parallel with the pitcher's plate he is in a windup.  If he is in a set, he must come to a complete and discernible stop.

[Richvee]

4 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

What am I missing? If a pitcher's pivot is parallel with the pitcher's plate he is in a set.  If his pivot foot is not parallel with the pitcher's plate he is in a windup.  If he is in a set, he must come to a complete and discernible stop.

Did you watch the video? Without bringing my protractor out to the mound, that kid's foot is parallel, and the accompanying memo says this is a legal windup. So, yes, it's re-muddying the waters. 

[johnnyg08]

Personally, I love the interp. With no runners on base it literally doesn't matter. I don't see a problem with this motion w/ the bases empty. I agree with Hopkins. 

We'll see if our state falls in line. 

[Velho]

20 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Did you watch the video?

For ease of access 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkUa1uMpYoKpzyAces9t3s_wmOnSiuFf/view

[Jimurray]

35 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Did you watch the video? Without bringing my protractor out to the mound, that kid's foot is parallel, and the accompanying memo says this is a legal windup. So, yes, it's re-muddying the waters. 

If you judge parallel, it's an illegal windup. I see a non parallel position that subtly changes to parallel in the delivery. I'm willing to bet a video of this pitcher with runners on will not be the same delivery. What you all are not getting is Hopkins is referring to the subtle pivot foot movement in the windup while PIAA took it as allowing a parallel pivot foot windup. Hopkins and NFHS do not say you can wind up from a parallel pivot foot stance and PIAA is wrong. There is nuance in the judgement of a legal hybrid delivery, especially with very angular pitchers, but in my neck of the woods a pitcher as in the OP would not be considered in the set and his set would be completely obvious as being different and the set. Do you want to stop a pitcher from winding up like that with no runners or R3 plus when you have seen a different pivot foot position, a stretch, and even an approach to the rubber with R1 etc.

[Jimurray]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

For ease of access 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BkUa1uMpYoKpzyAces9t3s_wmOnSiuFf/view

Need to find a video of his set with runners, other than R3, on. Context matters and I suspect if you see his set you will know this is his windup. Hint, hint for those clueless: Runner configuration drives pitcher delivery except when they want to deke or forget where runners are. 

[Tborze]

36 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

If you judge parallel, it's an illegal windup. I see a non parallel position that subtly changes to parallel in the delivery. I'm willing to bet a video of this pitcher with runners on will not be the same delivery. What you all are not getting is Hopkins is referring to the subtle pivot foot movement in the windup while PIAA took it as allowing a parallel pivot foot windup. Hopkins and NFHS do not say you can wind up from a parallel pivot foot stance and PIAA is wrong. There is nuance in the judgement of a legal hybrid delivery, especially with very angular pitchers, but in my neck of the woods a pitcher as in the OP would not be considered in the set and his set would be completely obvious as being different and the set. Do you want to stop a pitcher from winding up like that with no runners or R3 plus when you have seen a different pivot foot position, a stretch, and even an approach to the rubber with R1 etc.

Our association asked for a clarification on being “set” before the batter was ready.  This was due to another situation where they said it was legal. 
I’m wondering if that got mis-construed in the question to Hopkins?!

Wouldn’t FED have to rewrite the windup rule based on the fact of raising both hands simultaneously begins the pitching motion and therefore can’t legally step off?  

 

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

If you judge parallel, it's an illegal windup. I see a non parallel position that subtly changes to parallel in the delivery. I'm willing to bet a video of this pitcher with runners on will not be the same delivery. What you all are not getting is Hopkins is referring to the subtle pivot foot movement in the windup while PIAA took it as allowing a parallel pivot foot windup. Hopkins and NFHS do not say you can wind up from a parallel pivot foot stance and PIAA is wrong. There is nuance in the judgement of a legal hybrid delivery, especially with very angular pitchers, but in my neck of the woods a pitcher as in the OP would not be considered in the set and his set would be completely obvious as being different and the set. Do you want to stop a pitcher from winding up like that with no runners or R3 plus when you have seen a different pivot foot position, a stretch, and even an approach to the rubber with R1 etc.

I’m not disagreeing. And like you, I’ve always thought  98% of these windups are easily distinguishable from a set. 
My point is, if we’re going to dissect the angle of the pivot foot to fractions of a degree from parallel, then, 100% of the time, when I’m on the bases, I will not see a parallel foot windup. “In my judgement, his pivot foot is on a slight angle”. 

[Jimurray]

17 minutes ago, Richvee said:

I’m not disagreeing. And like you, I’ve always thought  98% of these windups are easily distinguishable from a set. 
My point is, if we’re going to dissect the angle of the pivot foot to fractions of a degree from parallel, then, 100% of the time, when I’m on the bases, I will not see a parallel foot windup. “In my judgement, his pivot foot is on a slight angle”. 

Which means that you and the runner will not know which delivery will happen. Except you both will know because they are different, there is a tell with the pivot foot reposition, and used in different runner configs at the levels where the players know what they are doing. HS JV with a new recruited pitcher from Mexico who has pitched OBR all his career we have to tell him to change his windup foot position but even if he didn't there is a difference in his windup and set. MLB and NCAA went the "declare" method for David Price who a nuanced umpire would not need him to declare. Even in MLB there are non-nuanced umpires. Nuanced meaning tuned in.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

Which means that you and the runner will not know which delivery will happen. Except you both will know because they are different, there is a tell with the pivot foot reposition, and used in different runner configs at the levels where the players know what they are doing. HS JV with a new recruited pitcher from Mexico who has pitched OBR all his career we have to tell him to change his windup foot position but even if he didn't there is a difference in his windup and set. MLB and NCAA went the "declare" method for David Price who a nuanced umpire would not need him to declare. Even in MLB there are non-nuanced umpires. Nuanced meaning tuned in.

Just to expound, there are numerous "tells" that let you know what delivery a pitcher is going to use.

[The Man in Blue]

I'm with @Jimurray . . . That quote does not match that video.  The answer is for a different question than what it is being presented as.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

Wouldn’t FED have to rewrite the windup rule based on the fact of raising both hands simultaneously begins the pitching motion and therefore can’t legally step off?  

 

That would be the correct way, if that is what they want.  Or, you can do it the Fed Way and issue interpretations contrary to the rule or referring to non-existent rules.

[johnnyg08]

3 hours ago, Tborze said:

Our association asked for a clarification on being “set” before the batter was ready.

Almost every pitcher in our state does this...at least in the games I'm working. 

I feel like it makes more sense to allow it as long as we're not quick pitching. 

 

[Kevin_K]

So when F1 engages the rubber with his pivot foot parallel to the rubber with runners on base

comes set at the belt, and then steps towards 1B

that's not a balk in FED?

 

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Kevin_K said:

So when F1 engages the rubber with his pivot foot parallel to the rubber with runners on base

comes set at the belt, and then steps towards 1B

that's not a balk in FED?

 

With runners on 100% NFHS balk. The bulletin even states that the video and interp in question relates to bases empty only.

[johnnyg08]

I did a little homework this morning and found a highlight film of him throw warmups...looks the same