Why don't they change the rules for pitching to finally stop all the whining and change the rules regarding the weapons batters use for bats for safety purposes? I have yet to see any actual data suggesting that losing contact with the ground with the pivot foot gives any advantage to the pitcher. Until such data is presented, I don't see a problem. And what about landing outside the chute? This is a sign of poor mechanics regarding driving force and didn't bother me as a batter when I was playing. What is the big deal with this? Perhaps I am I missing something here. Please enlighten me.
The end of the big leap?
- Thread starter sluggers
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
BLB, you do point out the basic problem:
The rules right now do keep a pitcher from getting an advantage crow hopping or leaping off the mound. Even though the enforcement is inconsistent, the pitchers are more or less kept in check.
The crow hops and leaps currently don't improve the pitcher's performance. But, if there were no rules, then you would see a difference. Crow hopping, e.g., would allow a pitcher to start her motion perhaps 3 feet in front of the mound. If there were no drag requirement, then the girls would be leaping another 2 to 3 feet closer to the plate.
Same with landing outside the chute--sure, landing 2 inches outside of the chute is not a big deal. But, how about if they land 2 feet outside of the chute? Is it even pitching?
The rules right now do keep a pitcher from getting an advantage crow hopping or leaping off the mound. Even though the enforcement is inconsistent, the pitchers are more or less kept in check.
The crow hops and leaps currently don't improve the pitcher's performance. But, if there were no rules, then you would see a difference. Crow hopping, e.g., would allow a pitcher to start her motion perhaps 3 feet in front of the mound. If there were no drag requirement, then the girls would be leaping another 2 to 3 feet closer to the plate.
Same with landing outside the chute--sure, landing 2 inches outside of the chute is not a big deal. But, how about if they land 2 feet outside of the chute? Is it even pitching?
Last edited:
Landing "outside the chute" is definitely an advantage. Imagine a pitcher stepping across their body, landing a foot outside the length of the pitcher's plate in a closed stance. The ball would be hidden from the batter for a time. Conversely, a pitcher steps outside the length in an open stance in order to get more movement on the ball, for a screwball or riseball for instance. Opening their stance and leaning their upper bodies provides an advantage for these specific wrist snaps.
Did you just classify the people who are demanding the existing rule set be enforced consistently as whiners? Really? Why change the rule? If they do it, fine. I and my players will adapt.
Considering the lack of actual scholarly research into excercise physiology, biomechanics and strength and conditioning of the fastpitch athlete 'within' the scope of the rules...good luck finding anything other than opinion on the matter. Unless of course you'd like to find someone with the right credentials to perform the study, front the money the study will cost and submit and get it published in a peer reviewed academic or professional periodical. Then maybe I'll quit grinding my axe, but problably not since it will still be a breach of the existing rules of the game. If there is no advantage to pitching illegally, then why are so many pitchers doing it?
Let see. We coach kids to play a sport yet roughly half of them (it seems) are playing the sport illegally when it comes to the rules set pertaining to pitching. Then when an umpire has the audacity to enforce the rules the coaches and parents act like children themselves and defend the player who broke the rules. What exactly are we teaching the kids again?
SoCal....GREAT REPLY!
- Oct 19, 2009
- 1,821
- 0
The pitching coach my daughter uses is adamant on not crow hopping, the coach advises that he has encountered a number of players who were crow hopping and experienced back and leg injuries. He advises he has talked with a number of college players who crow hopped and after college had spine and leg problems continue.
He has coached for around 40+ years and I would give him the benefit of the dought. My daughter was going to a coach who was teaching the crow hop and she was not getting any better. After going to the coach she is going to know he questioned her on her leg and back hurting, using the crow hop, and we found out that she was having problems and would not tell because she loved pitching so much and she was concerned that she would have to stop if she told.
Maybe the crow hop for some is a safety issue, for others maybe not. The advantage to crow hopping I’ve been told is the closer to the batter at release point the slower the reaction time for the batter.
If it is a safety issue for some of the young ladies then I hope they adhere to the rule.
He has coached for around 40+ years and I would give him the benefit of the dought. My daughter was going to a coach who was teaching the crow hop and she was not getting any better. After going to the coach she is going to know he questioned her on her leg and back hurting, using the crow hop, and we found out that she was having problems and would not tell because she loved pitching so much and she was concerned that she would have to stop if she told.
Maybe the crow hop for some is a safety issue, for others maybe not. The advantage to crow hopping I’ve been told is the closer to the batter at release point the slower the reaction time for the batter.
If it is a safety issue for some of the young ladies then I hope they adhere to the rule.
Why change the rule? If they do it, fine. I and my players will adapt.
It was just a thought. A few years ago, a friend of mine was umpire in chief at a National. He had his umpiring crew call replanting with zero tolerance. This rule had not been enforced very much in all parts of the country therefore a great deal of illegal pitches were being called. This caused a major issue all through the week and I mean "major". So much so that the rule was changed during winter meetings. Now there is no more whining and pitching effectiveness is the same whether they replant or not. Regarding the pitching effectiveness, I didn't mortgage my house in order to fund research on this
. There might be an advantage but my old eyes just don't see it.
Considering the lack of actual scholarly research into excercise physiology, biomechanics and strength and conditioning of the fastpitch athlete 'within' the scope of the rules...good luck finding anything other than opinion on the matter. Unless of course you'd like to find someone with the right credentials to perform the study, front the money the study will cost and submit and get it published in a peer reviewed academic or professional periodical. Then maybe I'll quit grinding my axe, but problably not since it will still be a breach of the existing rules of the game.
You're joking, right? If it takes such research to determine if indeed there is an advantage gained then ... do I need to say more?
If there is no advantage to pitching illegally, then why are so many pitchers doing it? Good point but I have no idea? By the way, replanting is not illegal in all rule books and in all countries.
I guess people are upset at umpires not applying the rules but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear to be. For example, some pitchers were found to be airborne only by reviewing slow motion video. And then again, for some pitchers it takes 2 or 3 views in slo-mo. How can one expect an umpire to see this in real time? Furthermore, where do you draw the line between obvious and not so obvious? When I see Cat Osterman pitch in real time, it is obvious to me that she is replanting but I don't care. I still enjoy watching her pitch. I do realize for the pitchers who are obvious, it can be frustrating for certain people for whatever reason. I'm just not one of those people. I just think that changing certain rules in US rule books would seem to be one option to seriously consider. As for the possibility of injuries down the road, I know we weren't allowed to replant back in my day and I have no more cartilage in my left knee to prove it. Perhaps replanting does cause other types of injuries. I don't know but I would seem to think it would be a lot less stressful on that stride leg knee.
By the way, I was watching a college game the other day. Why is it called "College World Series" when only US colleges take part? Are other countries welcome to take part?
It was just a thought. A few years ago, a friend of mine was umpire in chief at a National. He had his umpiring crew call replanting with zero tolerance. This rule had not been enforced very much in all parts of the country therefore a great deal of illegal pitches were being called. This caused a major issue all through the week and I mean "major". So much so that the rule was changed during winter meetings. Now there is no more whining and pitching effectiveness is the same whether they replant or not. Regarding the pitching effectiveness, I didn't mortgage my house in order to fund research on this
. There might be an advantage but my old eyes just don't see it.Considering the lack of actual scholarly research into excercise physiology, biomechanics and strength and conditioning of the fastpitch athlete 'within' the scope of the rules...good luck finding anything other than opinion on the matter. Unless of course you'd like to find someone with the right credentials to perform the study, front the money the study will cost and submit and get it published in a peer reviewed academic or professional periodical. Then maybe I'll quit grinding my axe, but problably not since it will still be a breach of the existing rules of the game.
You're joking, right? If it takes such research to determine if indeed there is an advantage gained then ... do I need to say more?
If there is no advantage to pitching illegally, then why are so many pitchers doing it? Good point but I have no idea? By the way, replanting is not illegal in all rule books and in all countries.
I guess people are upset at umpires not applying the rules but sometimes it's not as easy as it would appear to be. For example, some pitchers were found to be airborne only by reviewing slow motion video. And then again, for some pitchers it takes 2 or 3 views in slo-mo. How can one expect an umpire to see this in real time? Furthermore, where do you draw the line between obvious and not so obvious? When I see Cat Osterman pitch in real time, it is obvious to me that she is replanting but I don't care. I still enjoy watching her pitch. I do realize for the pitchers who are obvious, it can be frustrating for certain people for whatever reason. I'm just not one of those people. I just think that changing certain rules in US rule books would seem to be one option to seriously consider. As for the possibility of injuries down the road, I know we weren't allowed to replant back in my day and I have no more cartilage in my left knee to prove it. Perhaps replanting does cause other types of injuries. I don't know but I would seem to think it would be a lot less stressful on that stride leg knee.
By the way, I was watching a college game the other day. Why is it called "College World Series" when only US colleges take part? Are other countries welcome to take part?
Why change the rule? If they do it, fine. I and my players will adapt.
. Regarding the pitching effectiveness, I didn't mortgage my house in order to fund research on this
Considering the lack of actual scholarly research into excercise physiology, biomechanics and strength and conditioning of the fastpitch athlete 'within' the scope of the rules...good luck finding anything other than opinion on the matter. Unless of course you'd like to find someone with the right credentials to perform the study, front the money the study will cost and submit and get it published in a peer reviewed academic or professional periodical. Then maybe I'll quit grinding my axe, but problably not since it will still be a breach of the existing rules of the game.
You're joking, right? If it takes such research to determine if indeed there is an advantage gained then ... do I need to say more?
Not really joking at all, being sarcastic as hell yes. I was responding to this.
You said you wanted to see data. I explained why that data would never materialize. Your eyes and your perceptions of what you see is not data. It's an opinion. Data is measured quantifiable information that can provide a basis for proving a fact.
True enough. Though the topic of this thread is how IP's are being dealt with in NCAA competition. Nice redirection attempt.
And out come the standard litany of strawman arguments. That's fine. Justify your opinion how ever you choose. The fact of the matter is that it is illegal in the realm of the orignial discussion. As long as the elements under discussion are illegal and the umpires are not call the infractions the rules are not enforcing the level playing field for fair competition that they were designed to provide.
What does that have to do with illegal pitching? Oh wait! Another redirect and distract attempt.
That was fun, but I'm done here.
