Time for rule change?

[jonriv]

Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?

[UmpSteve]

Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?

Apparently they should change because Mark H. thinks so. He has been dismissive of any other thought, no matter how it is expressed.

[PDad]

1. Any pitcher hitter imbalances are easily addressed with rubber distance changes.

The point of stripping the rules down to where they're dominant was to remove their incentive to violate the rules. If they're not dominating within the rules, they will push the rules to give themselves a competitive advantage..

Not entirely sure I follow. Maybe you could reword it.

Competitors will push period.

Write the rules the way pitchers naturally want to throw. Let athletes perform a natural athletic motion. If a competitive imbalance results, move the rubber back.

You again use the notion of "natural" despite not clarifying it after the last time. A possible definition is what someone that's never seen a FP pitcher (e.g. a toddler or an aborigine living in the wild) would do if asked to hit a target by throwing underhand, however I doubt that's what you mean, It's not like they're required to do a cartwheel while pitching.

Competitive pitchers "want" to be successful and consequently will try whatever makes them more successful - including stretching the rules as far as they can. They have an incentive to improve their performance if they're not dominating, especially if they're unsuccessful. They also have an incentive to cheat if they're not dominating within the rules and the net result is a benefit due to inconsistent enforcement.

Consistent enforcement is an important aspect of any rule. You wouldn't have your issue of IP's being called in the WCWS if they were called consistently for the entire season. It would be even better if IP's were called consistently from early JO ball, however I expect college coaches would adapt their training, and ultimately their recruiting, if they knew 5-6 months in advance it would be consistent for their entire season. Even so, I also expect coaches intending to compete now in the WCWS would make sure their pitchers are effective with a legal delivery.

Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.

[Mark H]

Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?

If it isn't natural why the need for a rule to stop it?

[Mark H]

Why should we change the rules for 2-3% of the pitching population Who says leaping is the natural motion. Why can't players learn to play within in the rules-since almost all do?

Apparently they should change because Mark H. thinks so. He has been dismissive of any other thought, no matter how it is expressed.

Sorry. I'm frustrated by the IPs on national tv and I'd really like someone to convince me the rule is in the best interests of the sport.

[Mark H]

1. Any pitcher hitter imbalances are easily addressed with rubber distance changes.

The point of stripping the rules down to where they're dominant was to remove their incentive to violate the rules. If they're not dominating within the rules, they will push the rules to give themselves a competitive advantage..

Not entirely sure I follow. Maybe you could reword it.

Competitors will push period.

Write the rules the way pitchers naturally want to throw. Let athletes perform a natural athletic motion. If a competitive imbalance results, move the rubber back.

You again use the notion of "natural" despite not clarifying it after the last time. A possible definition is what someone that's never seen a FP pitcher (e.g. a toddler or an aborigine living in the wild) would do if asked to hit a target by throwing underhand, however I doubt that's what you mean, It's not like they're required to do a cartwheel while pitching.

Competitive pitchers "want" to be successful and consequently will try whatever makes them more successful - including stretching the rules as far as they can. They have an incentive to improve their performance if they're not dominating, especially if they're unsuccessful. They also have an incentive to cheat if they're not dominating within the rules and the net result is a benefit due to inconsistent enforcement.

Consistent enforcement is an important aspect of any rule. You wouldn't have your issue of IP's being called in the WCWS if they were called consistently for the entire season. It would be even better if IP's were called consistently from early JO ball, however I expect college coaches would adapt their training, and ultimately their recruiting, if they knew 5-6 months in advance it would be consistent for their entire season. Even so, I also expect coaches intending to compete now in the WCWS would make sure their pitchers are effective with a legal delivery..

OK. But is the leap rule good for the sport in the long run?

[Mark H]

Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.

Same way they decided to move it to 43.

[Battle]

They also have an incentive to cheat if they're not dominating within the rules and the net result is a benefit due to inconsistent enforcement

There's a saying for stock car racers..."If you ain't cheatin', you ain't competin'"

[PDad]

OK. But is the leap rule good for the sport in the long run?

We've already discussed that and it's pointless to rehash it.

Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.

Same way they decided to move it to 43.

Okay, how was that done?

[Mark H]

OK. But is the leap rule good for the sport in the long run?

We've already discussed that and it's pointless to rehash it.?

Every time we start to we head off on to a bunny trail. Kind of the over arching theme whenever pitching rules are discussed. It's never what's best for the future of the sport. It's darn the evil rule breakers or darn the inconsistent umps or heck no the rule shouldn't be changed because my darling daughter worked hard to do it this way.

Regarding changing the pitching distance to resolve an imbalance, I'm curious how you determine the amount so you get it right the first time instead of going through an iterative process.

Same way they decided to move it to 43.

Okay, how was that done?

Don't care. Just another bunny trail. Point is it's been done and it doesn't matter anyway because we will be living with it just like it is for the foreseeable future.