"Pushing off with the pivot foot from a place other than the pitcher's plate is illegal." How do umpires determine whether there is in fact an actual second push? For example, if the line left on the ground following the replant is directed more towards 1st base than home plate, was there an actual push forward?
Illegal pitching? A survey
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
I'm not sure how teaching a young pitcher proper technique will cause her to give up pitching? It's like learning how to ride a bike, once taught, it becomes automate. What is difficult is allowing a young pitcher to use improper mechanics (leaping / replanting) for years and THEN trying to teach her to change her technique so she is not called for an IP.
George R. - my 2010 ASA rule book says that a pitcher's pivot foot must remain in contact with the ground. I'm not sure how your rule book is different than mine?
While crowhopping is illegal and a point of emphasis should be made to honor the rules, I think it is of minimal advantage for most pitchers. I watched a replay of a Florida-Auburn game yesterday and there were several IP calls for leaping/crowhopping. It seemed to be a token deal as it was hard to tell what specifically provoked the calls – it appeared to be more of a nod to the NCAA/SUIP staff. But, the Florida pitcher was consistently pitching illegal by striding outside the width of the pitching plate and was not called once for it.
The reason I am adamantly against illegally stepping outside the width of the plate is because it gives the illegal pitcher a distinct advantage AND it can create a disadvantage for the opposing legal pitcher. The reason for this is how a hitter and the umpire perceive the strike zone. A hitter perceives the strike zone entirely in front of the plate; she has to make a decision well before the ball crosses the plate. An umpire perceives a pitch all the way through the balls flight into the catcher’s glove. Just ask an umpire if how the catcher frames a pitch can have an effect on their call.
Pitching illegal outside the width of the rubber creates an issue with both the call on the inside and outside of the plate. An illegal RH pitcher can start the ball on the outside of the plate (RH hitter) and it will be perceived by the hitter as off the plate because she is making a decision out in front. Even a slight tailing in of the pitch will be perceived by the umpire as moving in to the strike zone and the catcher can frame it to appear even more so by setting up off the plate and moving her glove in slightly. If the same pitcher were stepping inside the width of the plate she would have to start the pitch on a greater angle to the outside and wouldn’t get the same tailing effect. The umpire will see the same pitch moving away and possibly straightening and the catcher will have to receive the ball off the plate.
The same is true for the inside pitch. Stepping legally and throwing a strike on the inside requires the release angle to be small – meaning the pitch can not have much of a diagonal trajectory. Moving the release point six inches to the left by stepping outside the width allows the pitcher to hit the same spot at a more severe diagonal trajectory. The hitter perceives the pitch as coming in on her out in front and bales out. The umpire perceives the pitch as moving across the plate.
If there is any doubt about the advantage, forget about any movement and stretch a string from the middle of the pitching rubber to both corners of home plate and look at the angles from the umpires perspective and then from the batters perspective. Then do the same moving the string to the far left side of the rubber.
Granted, a left handed pitcher may gain some of the same advantage. But, the difference is in how an umpire will setup and perceive a left handed pitcher versus a right handed pitcher. An umpire is more likely to setup and evaluate two right handers in the same manner. The disadvantage to the legal pitcher is that all of her pitches to the corners will be moving away from the strike zone while an illegal pitcher can unfairly manipulate the diagonal trajectory of her pitches. Even if this unfair advantage produces a 2% difference in how the umpire calls balls and strikes for both pitchers that would mean that about 5 pitches would be affected. Think about how much different the outcome of any game would be if you could reverse the call of 5 pitches for either team.
A crowhopper usually crowhops in a consistent manner – usually a mechanical issue – and the advantage is minimized over the course of a game. A pitcher stepping outside the width of the rubber can gain a consistent advantage on every pitch (legal or illegal) and have a negative effect on the opposing pitcher as well as hitters.
Drawing chalk lines is a joke as the pitcher gets rid of them almost before the first pitch. IMO, umpires need to focus on this form of illegal pitching far more than worrying about a pitcher’s toe briefly losing contact with the ground. In a perfect world there would be no illegal pitching, but to me most crowhopping presents less of a threat to the integrity of the game than the rise of the overtly illegal screwball pitchers.
The reason I am adamantly against illegally stepping outside the width of the plate is because it gives the illegal pitcher a distinct advantage AND it can create a disadvantage for the opposing legal pitcher. The reason for this is how a hitter and the umpire perceive the strike zone. A hitter perceives the strike zone entirely in front of the plate; she has to make a decision well before the ball crosses the plate. An umpire perceives a pitch all the way through the balls flight into the catcher’s glove. Just ask an umpire if how the catcher frames a pitch can have an effect on their call.
Pitching illegal outside the width of the rubber creates an issue with both the call on the inside and outside of the plate. An illegal RH pitcher can start the ball on the outside of the plate (RH hitter) and it will be perceived by the hitter as off the plate because she is making a decision out in front. Even a slight tailing in of the pitch will be perceived by the umpire as moving in to the strike zone and the catcher can frame it to appear even more so by setting up off the plate and moving her glove in slightly. If the same pitcher were stepping inside the width of the plate she would have to start the pitch on a greater angle to the outside and wouldn’t get the same tailing effect. The umpire will see the same pitch moving away and possibly straightening and the catcher will have to receive the ball off the plate.
The same is true for the inside pitch. Stepping legally and throwing a strike on the inside requires the release angle to be small – meaning the pitch can not have much of a diagonal trajectory. Moving the release point six inches to the left by stepping outside the width allows the pitcher to hit the same spot at a more severe diagonal trajectory. The hitter perceives the pitch as coming in on her out in front and bales out. The umpire perceives the pitch as moving across the plate.
If there is any doubt about the advantage, forget about any movement and stretch a string from the middle of the pitching rubber to both corners of home plate and look at the angles from the umpires perspective and then from the batters perspective. Then do the same moving the string to the far left side of the rubber.
Granted, a left handed pitcher may gain some of the same advantage. But, the difference is in how an umpire will setup and perceive a left handed pitcher versus a right handed pitcher. An umpire is more likely to setup and evaluate two right handers in the same manner. The disadvantage to the legal pitcher is that all of her pitches to the corners will be moving away from the strike zone while an illegal pitcher can unfairly manipulate the diagonal trajectory of her pitches. Even if this unfair advantage produces a 2% difference in how the umpire calls balls and strikes for both pitchers that would mean that about 5 pitches would be affected. Think about how much different the outcome of any game would be if you could reverse the call of 5 pitches for either team.
A crowhopper usually crowhops in a consistent manner – usually a mechanical issue – and the advantage is minimized over the course of a game. A pitcher stepping outside the width of the rubber can gain a consistent advantage on every pitch (legal or illegal) and have a negative effect on the opposing pitcher as well as hitters.
Drawing chalk lines is a joke as the pitcher gets rid of them almost before the first pitch. IMO, umpires need to focus on this form of illegal pitching far more than worrying about a pitcher’s toe briefly losing contact with the ground. In a perfect world there would be no illegal pitching, but to me most crowhopping presents less of a threat to the integrity of the game than the rise of the overtly illegal screwball pitchers.
That's not at all what I ment in my statement about discouraging younger pitchers. I will try to clarify my point.
It would be fantastic if every kid that picked up a ball with the intention of becoming a pitcher would begin with correct mechanics. Unfortunatly ours is not a perfect world and well intentioned parents and coaches often times with incomplete knowledge try to instruct these skills. When they start playing Tournament/Travel ball with the alphabet soup of organisations, many of them have flaws that were not corrected in Rec/LL ball. If they are pulled in the first inning of every game they get to pitch because of constant IP calls it could become very discouraging. Granted it's a hypothetical argument as proposed by Hal, but I see the logic in it. It might be better for the umps to call enough IP's to make it sting and increase the difficulty of getting a win, but allow the player the opportunity to get some game experience.
We agree 100% on that. Clearly the lack of enforcement of the pitching rules has been a long running tradition in competitive softball for many years. Otherwise there wouldn't be a bunch of college age women, some of whom are playing Division 1 ball with fantastic programs getting called on double digits of illegal pitches per game this year. If the rules were enforced at the youth levels these problems wouldn't still exist at the top tier college level. Nobody, that I have seen has argued that the problem doesn't exist. There are some who think it isn't a problem, 'because the pitcher isn't getting an advantage' by pitching illegally. I still don't get that, illegal is illegal and should be penalised accordingly.
The point that really lacks consensus is how to fix the problem...for those of us that think there is a problem.
As I said in another post, I don't think the alphabet soup orgnisations that govern youth sports have the will to correct the problem. They are in a popularity contest of sorts against each other for participants. They could very well end up cutting off thier nose to spite thier face if they are the first to implement a change where the rules for illegal pitching are suddenly enforced. Those teams with pitching that is almost unilaterally illegal would certainly not play there. Teams who's ace couldn't pitch in those tournaments, probably, wouldn't go there. Teams who's pitchers throw legally would flock there.
What's your impression on how that would affect the organization that made that move? Net gain or net loss of participants in tournaments and league play under thier rules paying them dues?
I think the NCAA move this year to enforce thier pitching rules strictly this year is a good sign and sets the stage for the alphabet soups to follow suit. I'd be thrilled to see that happen. There are a bunch of coaches claiming the purpose of thier program is to get thier athletes college scholarship opportunities. NCAA just made it so coaches all across the country in all the alphabet soup organisations should be embracing correct mechanics and legal technique so the kids get the proclaimed opportunities.
Another interesting question. Why aren't the coaches that have pitchers with illegal mechanics correcting the issue? Because they aren't getting called on it and would rather work on other things that have an impact on in game performance like speed, location and movement? Are they not fixing the issue because they percieve an advantage for thier player and as long as they aren't getting tickets for speeding they are going to push as much as they can.
Thanks for your input. Got my brain juices flowing a bit.
- Feb 8, 2009
- 271
- 18
I can't see an umpire calling any of these girls for being illegal Replants occur after the stride foot lands. These girls toes are just bouncing a little - no big second push..If my team were playing against them, I wouldn't say a word. As far as blaming pitching coaches goes, kids pick up bad habits so easily, it's hard to fix all of them all the time. Bottom line, there is nothing particularly egregious here.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this a sure sign that they are leaping, then? Try stepping as far as you can (without jumping and being airborne) with your lead foot, and plant your back foot again on the follow through. Seems quite awkward to me. So awkward, in fact, that I don't think it is possible.
However, I don't agree that the replant occurs after the front foot lands, anyway.
Everyone of these pitchers reapplies their weight onto their pivot foot after it has moved forward and off the plate. Therefore they are pushing a second time from a closer distance to home than the mound. They are all illegal, according to the crow hopping rule. It is easy to see if a pitcher is doing this simply by going out to the mound area and inspecting the dirt. There will be a second hole in the ground approximately 12-18" in front of the mound. This is the proof that the weight has been reapplied and a second push has been performed.
- Feb 28, 2010
- 39
- 0
If the weight is applied a second time, that would imply to me a cease to momentum gained during the initial push. And, if the lead foot goes no further forward, wouldn't this be a disadvantage to the pitcher since she lost momentum and got no closer to the plate than she otherwise would have?
But without the leap or the hop, she wouldn't have been as close as she is.
You need to read just a little bit further- like, maybe, the next sentence of the rule.
See 6-3-K.
