NFHS Pitching Position Infractions

[Slippery Fish]

I saw two acts by pitchers yesterday that I was unsure how to officiate. I believe both of these are violations of the pitching rules, but I wasn't sure how to administer them.

Situation A: Pitcher delivers his windup from what I would call a "hybrid" position (I know there is no hybrid in NFHS). I say hybrid because his pivot foot was parallel to the rubber, which would put him in the set position, but he began his delivery by taking a step backwards with his non-pivot foot. He did not typically do this with runner on base, but did when there was R3 only (i.e. a time where it is typical for pitchers to be in the windup).

Situation B: Even stranger. The pitcher's foot is parallel to the rubber and he engages the rubber with the ball in his hand and "stretched out" to take the signs. He then "comes set" and brings his hands together and pauses. Then, he does as the pitcher above and takes a small step backwards with his non-pivot foot before making his delivery (hybrid?!). He does not take the extra step with his non-pivot foot with runners on base. 

I guess my underlying question is twofold. 1) is it illegal for a pitcher in the set to take an extra step with his non-pivot foot before making his delivery? Allowing this feels counter-productive to the delineation between set and windup, but I'm struggling to find wording in the rules governing the set position that would prevent this. Maybe the balk rule 6-4-d for failing to complete the pitch in a continuous motion? But then that'd only be an infraction with runners on base? Any advice is appreciated.

[johnnyg08]

Situation A is the Set, not hybrid. 

Rocker Step or any other step is an illegal pitch. Get it early. 

Situation B is the set as well. 

The restrictions for the Set are also in effect here too. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Situation A is the Set, not hybrid. 

Rocker Step or any other step is an illegal pitch. Get it early. 

Situation B is the set as well. 

The restrictions for the Set are also in effect here too. 

B is an obvious set that can't be a windup and would be an IP or balk.

If you allowed A with no runners with a parallel pivot foot it should have been called or warned right away. Sometimes the pivot is almost but not exactly parallel and the pitcher engages the rubber where you know he is going to windup. Usually you will notice that when he takes that rocker step with free foot the pivot foot will lift and pivot even further to true parallel to push off the rubber. That is a legal windup but if you have trouble discerning the angle of the pivot foot tell him you need more angle. But most pitchers that do that address the rubber different from their set address where you shouldn't be confused especially with the runner situation confirming how the pitcher would pitch. 

[Richvee]

Simplify it. If the pivot foot is parallel, in FED it’s the set position. Period. No exceptions. The rocker step with a parallel pivot foot is illegal. 
 

Now, I’ll tell you what some associations and chapters are doing with this “set with a rocker step” issue. 
Some are letting pitchers know during warmups..”Look- With that pivot foot parallel, you can’t take  that rocker step to the side. We’ll allow it with no runners, but you will be balked with any runners on. No matter where they are. No matter the situation”. 
I’ve  seen two already this year. One just angled his pivot foot to start making it a legal windup position, the other said, “I’ll just pitch from the set today”. 

[jimurrayalterego]

14 minutes ago, Richvee said:

 

We’ll allow it with no runners, but you will be balked with any runners on. No matter where they are. No matter the situation”. 
 

Asking for trouble with R3. He's going to windup. You allowed an illegal windup all game with no runners. He now knows to not windup like that and knows how to modify his windup? Just get the pivot foot turned 5 effin degrees or however many will let you discern a windup. But my challenge for braindead umps still exists. Post video of a sideways pitcher that I, and the runner, wouldn't be able to tell if he was going to windup or pitch from the stretch.

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Asking for trouble with R3

I do not disagree. I was surprised to hear the powers that be in one of my associations recommend this approach.  

[Tog Gee]

Someone check my work:

(caseplay) 6.1.3 SITUATION H: With R1 on first, F1 is in set position in a wide stance. He lifts his non pivot foot to shorten his stance and then returns to his wide stance (a) during his stretch and before his stop or (b) after his stop. RULING: This is legal in (a), but is a balk in (b). If non pivot foot is lifted after the stop, he must immediately pitch or step directly toward base and throw to that base

This example only describes the movement as a balk, but I believe it's an illegal pitch (and a ball) with no runners on.

 

(rulebook 6.2) [windup] During delivery, the pitcher may lift the non-pivot foot in a step forward, a step sideways, or in a step backward and a step forward, but the pitcher shall not otherwise lift either foot.

Extra steps with the free foot is only explicitly allowed for the windup, not the set.

 

 

Edited April 3, 2025 by Tog Gee

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Tog Gee said:

Someone check my work:

6.1.3 SITUATION H: With R1 on first, F1 is in set position in a wide stance. He lifts his non pivot foot to shorten his stance and then returns to his wide stance (a) during his stretch and before his stop or (b) after his stop. RULING: This is legal in (a), but is a balk in (b). If non pivot foot is lifted after the stop, he must immediately pitch or step directly toward base and throw to that base

This example only describes the movement as a balk, but I believe it's an illegal pitch (and a ball) with no runners on.

 

[windup] During delivery, the pitcher may lift the non-pivot foot in a step forward, a step sideways, or in a step backward and a step forward, but the pitcher shall not otherwise lift either foot.

In 6.2, stepping with the free foot is only explicitly allowed for the windup, not the set.

 

 

No. Read each section (set and windup) separately and do not apply one to the other. Pretend the windup section doesn't exist for the set and vice versa.

The bolded part of the question asks about what has to happen when the free foot is lifted. Of course F1 has to step with the free foot; it's a requirement to feint, throw, or pitch.

[Tog Gee]

5 hours ago, Replacematt said:

No. Read each section (set and windup) separately and do not apply one to the other. Pretend the windup section doesn't exist for the set and vice versa.

I wasn't applying the windup to the set. I was contrasting the two. Perhaps the lack of language has meaning.

5 hours ago, Replacematt said:

The bolded part of the question asks about what has to happen when the free foot is lifted. Of course F1 has to step with the free foot; it's a requirement to feint, throw, or pitch.

Of course. The point is that the pitcher can only immediately pitch or pick when the foot is lifted. No rocker step. 

[834k3r]

This is a POE for NFHS this year. While the verbiage of the POE isn't particularly helpful, I remember the POE slides for required rules clinics specifically mention that from the set the only movement the non-pivot foot can make is towards the plate (assuming no pick offs).

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

2 hours ago, 834k3r said:

This is a POE for NFHS this year. While the verbiage of the POE isn't particularly helpful, I remember the POE slides for required rules clinics specifically mention that from the set the only movement the non-pivot foot can make is towards the plate (assuming no pick offs).

 

Umpires as a group spend WAY too much time discussing whether something that occurred was a balk or not...by all means, if you have a question, please ask a question.

As The Beak-a-tollah Khomeni illustrates here, try to think of balks like this...by rule Fed allows only two pitching positions and clearly define what CAN be done from each of those two positions. It's all under rule 6 which is 4 pages in the rulebook. Read it. Learn it.

If a pitcher is doing something OTHER than what is ALLOWED under rule 6, you have a balk...please, call a balk.

~Dawg 

[jimurrayalterego]

25 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

 

If a pitcher is doing something OTHER than what is ALLOWED under rule 6, you have a balk...please, call a balk.

~Dawg 

That would apply with runners on. The pitcher can also be doing what is not allowed with no runners on which should be stopped/IPd. If you let that go until you balk it with runners on that is poor game management. One problem is brain dead umpires who don't focus on the pitcher's foot position in relaxed no runner situations. They then wake up and balk in a run when that windup was allowed all game.

[Slippery Fish]

Thanks for the help! Fully agree now that the pitchers were in the set because of their foot position. That seems pretty cut and dry. I want to make sure I fully understand why the rocker step itsself is disallowed. Is it because, as Tog Gee referenced, a step forward, sideways, or backward and forward are explicitly allowed in the windup that they are implicitly disallowed (and therefore a violation of 6-1-3) in the set?

And one follow up on enforcement. I like the idea of catching this during the warmups if you can. But say you didn't, or the pitcher just didn't use his windup in warmups. Are you allowing the pitcher to complete a pitch and then calling an illegal pitch (or balk), or are you trying to stop him once he does it but before he delivers?

[Replacematt]

7 minutes ago, Slippery Fish said:

Thanks for the help! Fully agree now that the pitchers were in the set because of their foot position. That seems pretty cut and dry. I want to make sure I fully understand why the rocker step itsself is disallowed. Is it because, as Tog Gee referenced, a step forward, sideways, or backward and forward are explicitly allowed in the windup that they are implicitly disallowed (and therefore a violation of 6-1-3) in the set?

And one follow up on enforcement. I like the idea of catching this during the warmups if you can. But say you didn't, or the pitcher just didn't use his windup in warmups. Are you allowing the pitcher to complete a pitch and then calling an illegal pitch (or balk), or are you trying to stop him once he does it but before he delivers?

You aren't required to fix them before it happens during the game; it just makes life easier for everyone if you happen to get it. Once it happens for real, your only legal option is to call it. 

That being said, if you didn't see it in warmups, the first one might catch you by surprise and you probably won't realize it until it's too late to call. Then you might be able to let F2 or F1 know they got away with an illegal one, so you're looking for it now. 

[Marcus6]

On 3/30/2025 at 10:07 PM, Richvee said:

Simplify it. If the pivot foot is parallel, in FED it’s the set position. Period. No exceptions. The rocker step with a parallel pivot foot is illegal. 
 

Now, I’ll tell you what some associations and chapters are doing with this “set with a rocker step” issue. 
Some are letting pitchers know during warmups..”Look- With that pivot foot parallel, you can’t take  that rocker step to the side. We’ll allow it with no runners, but you will be balked with any runners on. No matter where they are. No matter the situation”. 
I’ve  seen two already this year. One just angled his pivot foot to start making it a legal windup position, the other said, “I’ll just pitch from the set today”. 

A fellow umpire discussed this with me in our pregame a week ago.  NFHS game, he had a RHP who went from the set position 100% of the time. His scenario he had the pitcher coming set to a stop and would move his left foot straight back towards 1B to start his motion to pitch. I guess this would be a “rocker step” although I’ve never used that term. I argued this can be looked at as a step towards 1B and failing to make a legal pickoff attempt to 1B and instead delivering a pitch.  Because this is how you would start a pickoff to 1B.

Does my logic here make sense?

[johnnyg08]

On 3/30/2025 at 9:28 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

Asking for trouble with R3.

For sure. A smart coach will wait until R3 to say something.

[Tog Gee]

9 hours ago, FranklinT said:

I guess this would be a “rocker step” although I’ve never used that term. I argued this can be looked at as a step towards 1B and failing to make a legal pickoff attempt to 1B and instead delivering a pitch. 

Agree.

 

 

I think the case play is the most simple and clear: If non pivot foot is lifted after the stop, he must immediately pitch or step directly toward base and throw [or feint] to that base

 

 

 

(case play) 6.1.3 SITUATION H: With R1 on first, F1 is in set position in a wide stance. He lifts his non pivot foot to shorten his stance and then returns to his wide stance (a) during his stretch and before his stop or (b) after his stop. RULING: This is legal in (a), but is a balk in (b). If non pivot foot is lifted after the stop, he must immediately pitch or step directly toward base and throw to that base