Jordyn Bahl

[EdLovrich]

10.5.5 has 3 components, 1-replant, 2-gain a second starting point, 3-push off her pivot foot.

There is no rule 10.5.5 in the NFHS rule book. Please clarify what you are talking about. (EDIT: I see later in the post you are referring to NCAA 10.5.5) Also, I think we DO agree, that the pitch is illegal, just differ on the why.

 

[EdLovrich]

@wheresmycar You keep using clarifications from one code a video from a second and then quote from a third. This makes it very hard to discuss what is a very technical rule.

 

[wheresmycar]

@wheresmycar You used an old rule, and interpretation. Let's look at the new rule:

RULE 6A - PITCHING REGULATIONS (FAST PITCH)
SECTION 3 - LEGAL DELIVERY
J. Pushing off with the pivot foot from a place other than the pitcher’s plate is illegal.

Analysis so far: You stated that nowhere in the rule does sit say "anything illegal about the pivot foot bearing weight or the leg being bent." While technically true, as these words aren't used, I do not know how you could push off with the pivot foot from a place other than the pitcher's plate without the pivot foot bearing weight or the leg bending.

Further analysis, you agree and the rule clearly states, that the pitch does not begin until the hands are separated. Since in the video the hands do not separate until after the hesitation/stop/pause in the arm movement then that is not the cause of the pitch being illegal. As I have said a couple of times already, this is a technicality and the pitch is illegal regardless, but as an umpire, you have to know what makes any particular pitch illegal and just because it 'looks funny' does not make it illegal. Would a pitch be illegal if the P somehow and for some reason stopped her arm during the rotation after separating her ands and did not replant the foot? It would certainly look odd, more than likely it would be ineffective, but I do not see anything in the rules nor in the clarification you cited above. That citation says that the arm continuing uninterrupted is an indicator of a legal pitch. That does not mean that a pitch with a pause is, by that reason alone, an illegal pitch.

The first starting point is the pitchers plate. Any other starting point, would be a 2nd starting point.

Again, you insert your Opinion that "I don't know how you could push off... blah blah blah...." I don't see anywhere in the rules that Ed Lovrish's opinions or beliefs are relevant to the rules of softball.

​

 

[EdLovrich]

I don't see anywhere in the rules that Ed Lovrish's opinions or beliefs are relevant to the rules of softball.

​

NCAA 4.10.3.4 Make decisions on violations committed during playing time or during suspension of play

NFHS 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.3.1 (depending on where I am on the field)

USA 10.1

Pretty sure all of the other codes have similar rules regarding the authority of an umpire to make judgements and decisions regarding the rules of the game.

 

[wheresmycar]

@wheresmycar You keep using clarifications from one code a video from a second and then quote from a third. This makes it very hard to discuss what is a very technical rule.

Because at the end of the day, they are all referring to the same thing. I don't think the NCAA intended to have a different definition of "crow hop" from the NFHS, or the ASA rule set.

The NCAA rule 10.5.5 references a 2nd Starting Point. The NFHS video references a "new starting point". Coincidence? Or are they really talking about the same things?

 

[wheresmycar]

NCAA 4.10.3.4 Make decisions on violations committed during playing time or during suspension of play

NFHS 10.1.3, 10.2.1, 10.3.1 (depending on where I am on the field)

USA 10.1

Pretty sure all of the other codes have similar rules regarding the authority of an umpire to make judgements and decisions regarding the rules of the game.

Haha! Well played. I don't think you are the umpire in this discussion. But well played never the less.

However, if you are currently wearing a blue shirt and standing in a dirt field, I might concede the point.

 

[EdLovrich]

USA Definitions: CROW HOP: (Fast Pitch) The act of a pitcher who steps, hops or drags off the front of the pitcher’s plate, replants the pivot foot, thereby establishing a second impetus, or starting point, pushes off from the newly established starting point and completes the delivery

NCAA No definition but: 10.5.5 The pitcher is not allowed to hop or drag to a replant (crowhop), gain a second starting point and push off their pivot foot. Once having lost contact with the pitcher’s plate, the pivot foot may trail on the ground but may not bear weight again until the pitch is released

Analysis, the NCAA rule only includes the replant after a drag or hop as a crow hop. the second starting point and push off come after the crow hop.

NFHS Definitions Crow hop : A crow hop is the replant of the pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch.

Analysis, again the NFHS only refers to the replant of the foot, nothing about a second starting point or a push off.

 

[EdLovrich]

Are all of these different definitions confusing? Sure are. Do they lead to arguments, differences of interpretation and all-around problems on the field? Yep, many (most?) coaches, players and parents do not spend the amount of time learning the subtle differences between the various codes. Even the best umpires, who work two or more different codes and spend 100s of hours in rules study have days when they conflate one with another. Discussions such as this, truthfully, help us out as we have to get our noses back in the rule books and parse each sentence and phrase.

 

[Hillhouse]

The bottom line is, 99% of the population cannot tell the difference between a Leap and a Crow hop regardless of how it's defined. Some people exaggerate the crow hop definition by saying someone lands then pushes off again. I've never seen that, and I have seen the worst of the worst in crow hopping. Nobody lands then pushes off AGAIN. A crow hopper lands then pitches, there's no "2nd push". Pitchers that crow hop, whether its a large or small hop, still drag their foot after they land and throw the ball. That's not "pushing again". Some people make it sound like they are doing a triple jump kind of action. And it's people like that who are the ones that muddy the water in the definition. While both leaping and crow hop are illegal in NCAA, the fact that so many can't tell the difference they just call everyone who go airborne a "replant".

The reality is, all crow hoppers leap. But not all leapers crow hop. Cat Osterman was a good example of a pitcher who leaped. And people were equally outraged by that during her career, calling her illegal and posting on message boards back then.

When the NCAA changes the rule, and I do say WHEN because it's only a matter of time, there will still be a 2 year grace period before it goes into effect. All non-safety related rule changes have a 2 year grace period. If it's safety related, it can go immediately. And I believe they NCAA will approve the leap, same as the WBSC has. When that happens, it will be umpire's discretion on whether the pitcher "leaped" or "replanted". So crow hopping will become normal and it will never be called. Right now, an umpire can see the pitcher leave the ground and call it illegal. But when they legalize the leap, I doubt they will care if the pitcher crow hops or not. Just one man's opinion.

 

[Gtrips07]

The bottom line is, 99% of the population cannot tell the difference between a Leap and a Crow hop regardless of how it's defined. Some people exaggerate the crow hop definition by saying someone lands then pushes off again. I've never seen that, and I have seen the worst of the worst in crow hopping. Nobody lands then pushes off AGAIN. A crow hopper lands then pitches, there's no "2nd push". Pitchers that crow hop, whether its a large or small hop, still drag their foot after they land and throw the ball. That's not "pushing again". Some people make it sound like they are doing a triple jump kind of action. And it's people like that who are the ones that muddy the water in the definition. While both leaping and crow hop are illegal in NCAA, the fact that so many can't tell the difference they just call everyone who go airborne a "replant".

The reality is, all crow hoppers leap. But not all leapers crow hop. Cat Osterman was a good example of a pitcher who leaped. And people were equally outraged by that during her career, calling her illegal and posting on message boards back then.

When the NCAA changes the rule, and I do say WHEN because it's only a matter of time, there will still be a 2 year grace period before it goes into effect. All non-safety related rule changes have a 2 year grace period. If it's safety related, it can go immediately. And I believe they NCAA will approve the leap, same as the WBSC has. When that happens, it will be umpire's discretion on whether the pitcher "leaped" or "replanted". So crow hopping will become normal and it will never be called. Right now, an umpire can see the pitcher leave the ground and call it illegal. But when they legalize the leap, I doubt they will care if the pitcher crow hops or not. Just one man's opinion.

Bill,
If pitchers don't replant why do you see pitchers have dirt that kicks up 90 degrees to the pitch line degrees from the back foot? Isn't this a replant?



Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk