Jimurray Posted May 11 Report Posted May 11 2 hours 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? 1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said: With runners on 100% NFHS balk. The bulletin even states that the video and interp in question relates to bases empty only. If you perceive the pivot foot parallel it would be an illegal pitch or ball. I doubt you would ever call a balk though because when you call IP on his first pitch of the game he would change the angle of the pivot foot slightly to make it acceptable to you. He’s not coming set at the belt. He’s bring his hands together as many pitchers do in the windup. If you do see this windup with R3 later in the game you will not be confused about it being a set. By then you will have seen his different set delivery with runners on. But what “subtle” step is Hopkins referring to? The free foot step is not subtle. Quote
Tborze Posted May 11 Author Report Posted May 11 10 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: 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. Your pitchers from the “stretch” are coming “set” before batters are ready? AKA “Schwarzer” <spell check Quote
Jimurray Posted May 11 Report Posted May 11 5 minutes ago, Tborze said: Your pitchers from the “stretch” are coming “set” before batters are ready? AKA “Schwarzer” <spell check No rule against it in FED. Just don't allow a QP. Come to think of it I don't know if there is a "rule" against it in OBR or NCAA. I think it's an instruction to not allow it and penalize it after a warning. Quote
MadMax Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 22 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: I feel like it makes more sense to allow it as long as we're not quick pitching. Johnny, I’m not addressing you, specifically; however, what you said (above 👆🏼) illuminates the overarching problem… “I feel like it makes more sense to allow it” – But, who are you??? Are you a NFHS Rules Interpreter for the National board? Are you a/the RI for your state? Your state association? Are you (a rep for) one of the 120+ associations in the state of Illinois (alone)? The problem isn’t the rule, per se… the problem is there’s no cohesive, comprehensive, centralized directive or edict issued from a representative of the NFHS RC or from the RC as a determining body. Say what you will about the NCAA, but when implementing a new rule, or an updated interpretation of a rule, they speak from one source, and there are a trove of demonstrations and videos to illustrate or accompany that rule (interpretation). Show, don’t tell. Demonstrate, don’t (just) draw a diagram. 1 Quote
Jimurray Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 43 minutes ago, MadMax said: Johnny, I’m not addressing you, specifically; however, what you said (above 👆🏼) illuminates the overarching problem… “I feel like it makes more sense to allow it” – But, who are you??? Are you a NFHS Rules Interpreter for the National board? Are you a/the RI for your state? Your state association? Are you (a rep for) one of the 120+ associations in the state of Illinois (alone)? The problem isn’t the rule, per se… the problem is there’s no cohesive, comprehensive, centralized directive or edict issued from a representative of the NFHS RC or from the RC as a determining body. Say what you will about the NCAA, but when implementing a new rule, or an updated interpretation of a rule, they speak from one source, and there are a trove of demonstrations and videos to illustrate or accompany that rule (interpretation). Show, don’t tell. Demonstrate, don’t (just) draw a diagram. So can you cite the NCAA rule that NCAA has "interpreted" regarding coming set. They have issued an "edict" but what rule does it expound upon? That being said, NCAA does do a better job of trying to get everyone on the same page. Quote
MadMax Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 8 hours ago, Jimurray said: So can you cite the NCAA rule that NCAA has "interpreted" regarding coming set. I wasn’t pointing to(wards) a specific rule, and I can’t do so at this time anyway (I’m on the road, and not doing NCAA games at present). 8 hours ago, Jimurray said: That being said, NCAA does do a better job of trying to get everyone on the same page. This was my point. NFHS could stand to take a page from NCAA’s process model. 1 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 10 hours ago, MadMax said: Johnny, I’m not addressing you, specifically; however, what you said (above 👆🏼) illuminates the overarching problem… “I feel like it makes more sense to allow it” – But, who are you??? Are you a NFHS Rules Interpreter for the National board? Are you a/the RI for your state? Your state association? Are you (a rep for) one of the 120+ associations in the state of Illinois (alone)? The problem isn’t the rule, per se… the problem is there’s no cohesive, comprehensive, centralized directive or edict issued from a representative of the NFHS RC or from the RC as a determining body. Say what you will about the NCAA, but when implementing a new rule, or an updated interpretation of a rule, they speak from one source, and there are a trove of demonstrations and videos to illustrate or accompany that rule (interpretation). Show, don’t tell. Demonstrate, don’t (just) draw a diagram. I do have a little bit of influence at the national level. But the intent of the rule is to allow runners to know if the pitcher is in the set or the windup. With the bases empty, it literally doesn't matter. In that same breath...this is a solution in search of a problem. Our state plays one type of baseball with a modified OBR rule set, we *gasp* allow the rocker step and we don't require a declaration with bases loaded, a runner on third, or R2/R3 and we haven't had one problem. Not one. Making rules to stack on top of rules isn't always better. Quote
MadMax Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 5 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: With the bases empty, it literally doesn't matter. Until you get that one umpire who is a literalist, and calls an Illegal Pitch. 8 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: Our state plays one type of baseball with a modified OBR rule set, we *gasp* allow the rocker step and we don't require a declaration with bases loaded, a runner on third, or R2/R3 and we haven't had one problem. Not one. Do the other 49 states (and territories! Don’t forget the territories!) know this? Because I foresee someone taking a video of one of your HS games, putting it in a PowerPoint (ugh. 😩), and showing it at an association meeting of their own, and when polling the room, you hear a cacophony of “Balk!”. I’ve been at those meetings. 🫣 I’m not saying that your state shouldn’t be at latitude to do their own rule modifications. What I am illuminating is the absence of an authoritative, cohesive, comprehensive decree. … and by “comprehensive”, I mean, would it kill ya to make a video tutorial?? Do your job! Why do we have to rely on the state of Georgia to put out a video series on YouTube (have you seen it? It’s pretty well done) to get video examples and analysis of rule citations? 1 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 23 minutes ago, MadMax said: Until you get that one umpire who is a literalist, and calls an Illegal Pitch. Well, I expect that's the problem or what makes umpiring baseball difficult. "The ball shall not permit the pitch to hit him" "The batter must make an attempt..." The words in the rule book, versus how it's interpreted & enforced in the real world. This isn't any different. Quote
johnnyg08 Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 25 minutes ago, MadMax said: I’m not saying that your state shouldn’t be at latitude to do their own rule modifications. What I am illuminating is the absence of an authoritative, cohesive, comprehensive decree. … and by “comprehensive”, I mean, would it kill ya to make a video tutorial?? Do your job! Why do we have to rely on the state of Georgia to put out a video series on YouTube (have you seen it? It’s pretty well done) to get video examples and analysis of rule citations? We agree. 1 Quote
Richvee Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 12 hours ago, MadMax said: Say what you will about the NCAA, but when implementing a new rule, or an updated interpretation of a rule, they speak from one source, and there are a trove of demonstrations and videos to illustrate or accompany that rule (interpretation) This!!! This!!! 1000 times THIS!!! We all get those NFHS newsletter emails....Why can't they link rules interp videos in them? 1 Quote
Richvee Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 56 minutes ago, MadMax said: Georgia to put out a video series on YouTube (have you seen it? It’s pretty well done) to get video examples and analysis of rule citations? Or NFHS could just hire Patrick and let him make "official NFHS interp videos" Quote
Tborze Posted May 12 Author Report Posted May 12 What about the fact that in order to make a dead ball live, the pitcher must be on the rubber, the batter and catcher must be ready, and by NFHS rule, , the pitcher must “stretch” before coming “set”? Is that too much of a stretch? During a live ball I am fine with it because by rule, the pitcher is subject to restrictions and the runner should be aware. My concern is during a DB and the pitcher is already “set”, doesn’t that put a runner at a disadvantage? Quote
Richvee Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 35 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said: Well, I expect that's the problem or what makes umpiring baseball difficult. "The ball shall not permit the pitch to hit him" "The batter must make an attempt..." The words in the rule book, versus how it's interpreted & enforced in the real world. This isn't any different. Exactly. So put out some official videos with examples of these plays. AS @MadMax said, "do your job" 2 Quote
MadMax Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Tborze said: What about the fact that in order to make a dead ball live, the pitcher must be on the rubber, T, I’ve / we’ve got colleagues who point the (dead) ball Live without the pitcher being on the rubber; instead, being visibly off of it. One-time mistake? Sure. Forgivable. Repeated pattern of behavior? And, when pointed out, either express naïvety or ignorance? Yeah, we must correct that. Edited May 12 by MadMax I confused with/without; see, I can edit this, easily, because it’s on a website, not printed on paper (exclusively). 2 Quote
Tborze Posted May 12 Author Report Posted May 12 2 minutes ago, MadMax said: T, I’ve / we’ve got colleagues who point the (dead) ball Live without the pitcher being visibly off the rubber. One-time mistake? Sure. Forgivable. Repeated pattern of behavior? And, when pointed out, either express naïvety or ignorance? Yeah, we must correct that. You have guys point the ball live? NICE! 1 2 Quote
Jimurray Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 19 minutes ago, Tborze said: the pitcher must “stretch” before coming “set”? Is that too much of a stretch? What rule is that? 1 Quote
Jimurray Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 1 hour ago, MadMax said: Until you get that one umpire who is a literalist, and calls an Illegal Pitch. If you are going to call it, better to call the first pitch an IP than balk in a run in the 7th. Quote
Jimurray Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 Recent example from TX playoffs. A legal windup from a pitcher. Viewed from front he looks just like the PIAA pitcher. Sideways you can see an angular pivot foot. And finally, would anyone confuse his set and windup? https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxleJaZ9XDmW_P0u1j8JUQYvAMsdd6B4oT?si=iYZsv2dBi9VRaAtz https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx112PPkXDmFrUDzzUKTa8TUwVwGcIyC9b?si=OYU13FPOVg4Z4YjV https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxU4gqFECZorUgV7jCV2wzkjs1yEYojCsE?si=pVUc5CZA03II_UKX Sorry, you have to copy and paste. 1 Quote
Tborze Posted May 12 Author Report Posted May 12 25 minutes ago, Jimurray said: Recent example from TX playoffs. A legal windup from a pitcher. Viewed from front he looks just like the PIAA pitcher. Sideways you can see an angular pivot foot. And finally, would anyone confuse his set and windup? https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxleJaZ9XDmW_P0u1j8JUQYvAMsdd6B4oT?si=iYZsv2dBi9VRaAtz https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx112PPkXDmFrUDzzUKTa8TUwVwGcIyC9b?si=OYU13FPOVg4Z4YjV https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxU4gqFECZorUgV7jCV2wzkjs1yEYojCsE?si=pVUc5CZA03II_UKX Sorry, you have to copy and paste. I believe NFHS will clarify or change the rule next year. But until then, I think, at least PIAA, doesn’t want balks called on this or anything else interpretational during the playoffs! I agree with you on the terminology of the windup and see it the way you have clarified it. Would you agree it would be a balk by rule from the WU if F1 simultaneously brings both hands together and then steps off? Quote
Jimurray Posted May 12 Report Posted May 12 20 minutes ago, Tborze said: Would you agree it would be a balk by rule from the WU if F1 simultaneously brings both hands together and then steps off? By NFHS rule regarding the TOP, yes. In many areas we always see the hands together non simultaneously. Quote
johnnyg08 Posted May 13 Report Posted May 13 11 hours ago, Tborze said: You have guys point the ball live? NICE! Advanced mechanic. 1 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.