Illegal windup?

[Richvee]

 

 

Correct me if I’m wrong. This should be illegal under NCAA rule. 

 

 

[Richvee]

Let me try again. 

 

 

[BLWizzRanger]

jeesh.... I have it as one.  The umps must be thinking that it is not the start of his windup when he raises his hands together, takes that first step, and stops (not pausing).

[Richvee]

3 hours ago, BLWizzRanger said:

jeesh.... I have it as one.  The umps must be thinking that it is not the start of his windup when he raises his hands together, takes that first step, and stops (not pausing).

I’d guess that would be their “excuse”. I’ve got hands together, then two steps prior to delivery. I’m pretty sure this is textbook for what the NCAA doesn’t want. 

[Jimurray]

10 hours ago, Richvee said:

I’d guess that would be their “excuse”. I’ve got hands together, then two steps prior to delivery. I’m pretty sure this is textbook for what the NCAA doesn’t want. 

Using OBR and MLBUM in judging this, hands together is not the start of the windup unless it is accompanied with a natural motion associated with delivery to the batter. So TOP is after the hands together stop. MLB is lax as to the direction of the stutter step. I don't know if NCAA would like it.

[grayhawk]

I have this as legal. He's getting set on the rubber, puts his glove/hand in front to establish his windup position and then takes a step that doesn't gain ground towards the plate and delivers.

I had one very similar to this and we as a crew decided it was legal. 

[Richvee]

13 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I have this as legal. He's getting set on the rubber, puts his glove/hand in front to establish his windup position and then takes a step that doesn't gain ground towards the plate and delivers.

I had one very similar to this and we as a crew decided it was legal. 

I’m seeing hands together, a step to the side then another step to parallel , and then a delivery. I thought NCAA was bent on ONE step sideways or backwards. 

[Richvee]

1 minute ago, Richvee said:

I’m seeing hands together, a step to the side then another step to parallel , and then a delivery. I thought NCAA was bent on ONE step sideways or backwards. 

So basically you guys are saying he’s not ready to start his windup when he’s on the rubbber and hands together…. And only after he raises his hands up, steps to the right is he in position to begin his windup? 
I think that’s a “stretch” ( no pun intended) 

[Jimurray]

12 minutes ago, Richvee said:

So basically you guys are saying he’s not ready to start his windup when he’s on the rubbber and hands together…. And only after he raises his hands up, steps to the right is he in position to begin his windup? 
I think that’s a “stretch” ( no pun intended) 

Your FED thinking is confusing you. Hands together does not automatically start the TOP in NCAA/OBR. From the MLBUM:

"(3) Facing the batter, hands apart, pivot foot in contact with the rubber, other foot free. From this position (hands apart), the pitcher receives the sign from the catcher and then brings his hands together in a stationary position (“pause”) before beginning the delivery. Once the pitcher’s hands are together, the pitcher is in the “traditional” windup position. If a pitcher uses this windup position, the act of bringing his arms up and positioning his hands in front of his body shall not be con strued as the start of his actual delivery UNLESS some other action is initiated by another part of his body simultaneously and is associated with the actual delivery."

The bold is not mine. The hands together and up and step are him getting into his windup delivery position and is not associated with the actual delivery which we then see. 

[JSam21]

Remember in the Pre-Season video, they talked about how a pitcher has to come to a stop before delivering if they are doing that rocking motion in the wind-up. This is him coming to that stop. 

[urout17]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I had one very similar to this and we as a crew decided it was legal.

Same.  We got together and determined it was legal.

[Richvee]

34 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Your FED thinking is confusing you. Hands together does not automatically start the TOP in NCAA/OBR. From the MLBUM:

"(3) Facing the batter, hands apart, pivot foot in contact with the rubber, other foot free. From this position (hands apart), the pitcher receives the sign from the catcher and then brings his hands together in a stationary position (“pause”) before beginning the delivery. Once the pitcher’s hands are together, the pitcher is in the “traditional” windup position. If a pitcher uses this windup position, the act of bringing his arms up and positioning his hands in front of his body shall not be con strued as the start of his actual delivery UNLESS some other action is initiated by another part of his body simultaneously and is associated with the actual delivery."

The bold is not mine. The hands together and up and step are him getting into his windup delivery position and is not associated with the actual delivery which we then see. 

I’m specifically speaking to NCAA

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

I’m specifically speaking to NCAA

So 9-1-a-1-c would apply:

"c) Hands apart and then bring the hands together and come to a stop to adjust the grip on the ball before beginning the delivery to the plate."

and from 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."

[Richvee]

1.Hands together, windup position, paused. 

“The pitcher shall stand facing the batter with their pivot foot in contact with the rubber and the other foot free. 

2. step to the side. Pause

 

3. Step back in front of rubber. Pause. 

“ the pitcher may take ONE step…..” 
sorry for being stubborn. I don’t see how this isn’t two steps and then a delivery. 

[jimurrayalterego]

30 minutes ago, Richvee said:

1.Hands together, windup position, paused. 

“The pitcher shall stand facing the batter with their pivot foot in contact with the rubber and the other foot free. 

2. step to the side. Pause

 

3. Step back in front of rubber. Pause. 

“ the pitcher may take ONE step…..” 
sorry for being stubborn. I don’t see how this isn’t two steps and then a delivery. 

I would call all the prelim as @noumpere would say as "getting comfortable on the rubber". I have TOP after the hands come up. But since he looks like a sideways windup pitcher he probably would declare with R3. I would ask if @beerguy55 would test the waters and send R3 and argue that TOP was the initial part of F1 getting on the rubber.

[Richvee]

7 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I would call all the prelim as @noumpere would say as "getting comfortable on the rubber". I have TOP after the hands come up. But since he looks like a sideways windup pitcher he probably would declare with R3. I would ask if @beerguy55 would test the waters and send R3 and argue that TOP was the initial part of F1 getting on the rubber.

Ok I get it. The first picture above is not considered where his windup begins. So the hands come up as he steps to the side. (picture 2) THEN his next moves are the beginning of his windup.  The step back to sideways is his one step, then delivery...Got it. Thanks

(My association's rules interpreter agrees)

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Richvee said:

Ok I get it. The first picture above is not considered where his windup begins. So the hands come up as as steps to the side. (picture 2) THEN his next moves are the beginning of his windup.  The step back to sideways is his one step, then delivery...Got it. Thanks

(My association's rules interpreter agrees)

Rant not at you. With no runners on what happens in the windup should be of no concern unless an advantage in momentum or distance occurs. That is what any rule verbiage is there for. My rant is with NCAA not being happy with a stutter step having a direction toward HP. There is no advantage. With runners on in windup sits we have to know the rule and be sure of TOP. But some get wrapped around the axle about stuff that has no effect on runners, or umpires that pay attention and understand the rules beyond their literal reading. 

[Richvee]

23 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Rant not at you. With no runners on what happens in the windup should be of no concern unless an advantage in momentum or distance occurs. That is what any rule verbiage is there for. My rant is with NCAA not being happy with a stutter step having a direction toward HP. There is no advantage. With runners on in windup sits we have to know the rule and be sure of TOP. But some get wrapped around the axle about stuff that has no effect on runners, or umpires that pay attention and understand the rules beyond their literal reading. 

Agree 100%. But NCAA’s constant obsession with it… interps, videos, bulletins….it can make your head spin. And with it all- at least to me- the differences between legal and illegal is still sometimes very minute and blurry. 

[BLWizzRanger]

10 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Agree 100%. But NCAA’s constant obsession with it… interps, videos, bulletins….it can make your head spin. And with it all- at least to me- the differences between legal and illegal is still sometimes very minute and blurry. 

When did we start talking about obstruction?

[jimurrayalterego]

43 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Agree 100%. But NCAA’s constant obsession with it… interps, videos, bulletins….it can make your head spin. And with it all- at least to me- the differences between legal and illegal is still sometimes very minute and blurry. 

I agree and don't blame you. Legal and illegal is different than advantage and no advantage. Yes some things are called regardless of that criteria such as changing from windup to set. But that usually happens with runners on. With no runners on why are we thinking about illegal pitches. Yes NFHS thinks that the batter can be put at a disadvantage and that's true at that level. At the MLB level Strop and others have used the windup rules to disadvantage the batter without being called illegal and sometimes not.  I think it comes down to whether the pitcher has violated the literal rule and has put a runner or batter at a disadvantage at the level you are calling. I'm on the lenient side of this issue.

[BLWizzRanger]

9 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I agree and don't blame you. Legal and illegal is different than advantage and no advantage. Yes some things are called regardless of that criteria such as changing from windup to set. But that usually happens with runners on. With no runners on why are we thinking about illegal pitches. Yes NFHS thinks that the batter can be put at a disadvantage and that's true at that level. At the MLB level Strop and others have used the windup rules to disadvantage the batter without being called illegal and sometimes not.  I think it comes down to whether the pitcher has violated the literal rule and has put a runner or batter at a disadvantage at the level you are calling. I'm on the lenient side of this issue.

Let's not kid ourselves.  At the NFHS level, there is also the thought on what can an umpire defend or cause the least amount of disruption - which causes the coach to say: "That wasn't called all year."  Our own brotherhood, with our inconsistencies amongst members, has caused more issues than not.

[TheLovejoy]

I view everything he does before he raises his hands as part of him gathering himself on the rubber, not as him already having fully assumed his pitching position.

We see this all the time with pitchers who step onto the rubber with the ball still in the glove, then remove the ball with the bare hand, lean forward, look in, and get their sign. Technically, yes — they are already in contact with the rubber while doing that. But nobody is calling that an illegal pitch or a balk unless those actions become separate, distinct, and create something deceptive or improper.

That is how I’m viewing this play.

To me, he steps onto the rubber while the batter is still getting ready, and all of that movement beforehand is just part of him getting settled. Once the batter fully engages him, that is when he brings his hands up and actually assumes what I would consider his windup starting position.

That is the key piece for me: I do not believe he has actually addressed the rubber in his windup position until he lifts his hands.

Because of that, I do not have an illegal pitch here.

Maybe others see it differently, but from my standpoint, there is not enough there for me to rule that he has legally established one position and then violated it. I’m treating the earlier movement as part of his natural gather, not as the start of a legally fixed pitching position.

Edit: cleaned up my confusing wording a bit. I think.

[MadMax]

On 3/30/2026 at 8:20 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

But some get wrapped around the axle about stuff that has no effect on runners, or umpires that pay attention and understand the rules beyond their literal reading. 

Remember, this is the NCAA. There's a game-within-the-game... or, in this case, game-outside-of-the-game. Remember, too, the adage that a D1 Umpire gave, regarding rules? "If you want to see the (NCAA) rule change(d), enforce it as written." Why's that? Because the college coaches largely influence the rules. Some coach(es), some where, at some time came to the consensus that "this" (in this case, pitching particulars) needs to be addressed. It likely came from an offense-minded coach(es). Pitcher-friendly coach(es) were either non-present or overshadowed. 

Where this manifests is, of course, inconsistent interpretation and application of the rule's literal intent, figurative intent ("spirit of the rule"), and "common sense & fair play". Less obvious, but still as pervasive? – an opportunity to... "affect" the game, thereby gaining an advantage (to your players & team) or a disruption / distraction to your opponent. Even if you get a lone umpire, on a 4-man crew, to question a pitcher's particulars, telling him, "You can't do that... something something rules say something something". You've now thrown off – disrupted – the pitcher. It's one more thing for him to "be aware of", and distract him. 

I swear I had this happen to me... I had a college coach, without blinking, tell me that if the DH (the opponent's) came into the game defensively, they (the opponent) had to pull their pitcher. Of course, he wants to talk to me about it at the 45, all while gesturing and pointing at the pitcher and stating, "He can't even warm up! They've got to pull him!". Regardless of the (correct) outcome and ruling, or if he was right (he wasn't) or wrong (he was), I'm convinced he "dialed up the drama" just to slyly disrupt and unnerve the pitcher. 

Game within the game. 

So this might be a case of one camp of coaches trying to out-jockey or out-fox another camp of coaches (likely pitching coaches). And we're caught in the middle.