another balk question

What level of baseball is this?  To me, if it's a 12 year old...and obviously nobody has taught him the right way...don't call a balk...stop the game and explain it to him.  As you explained it I would say technically it's right...and was a balk...because he was essentially in the windup while taking the signs...then moved to the stretch.  Again, just stop the game and fix it....

+1,  I think when my sons were 12u, rule was give a warning and explain, 2nd time it is a balk.

well I taught him that.  My old HS pitching coach told me that the free foot could be anywhere as long as it was in front of the plane of the front edge of the rubber when getting the sign and before coming up to set position. I was comfortable with that foot off towards the 1b dugout so that's what i did.  Some of the 'mounds' we get are these little green fake things and his free foot was on the ground in front of the mound.  So I told him to put the free foot off to the side and he could still lean in to get his sign.  I never got called for a balk from 13 through college so I thought he was fine.  Can you link me to a written rule on that?

 

this was a lower tier travel tournament that was a last minute thing that won't happen again.  Had a kid called out at the plate who had tagged on a fly ball.  No tag put on him, the ump thought it was a force play.  And we had an infield fly rule called on a pop up with 1 runner on 1b.

No. The "imaginary 45-degree line" has nothing to do with his stance prior to pitching.

 

There is nothing illegal about your son's stance.

agreed,,,,,,,,,,

If it wasn't under Fed rules then yes it is a balk... 6-1-3

 

It's not a balk under any (major) code.

 

All that's needed in FED and OBR is that the non-pivot foot be entirely in front of a line through the front of the rubber.  The non-pivot foot does NOT need to be "directly" in front of the rubber.  See for example case 6-1-3A in FED.

 

In NCAA, the non-pivot foot just needs to be farther forward than any part of the pivot foot.

 

In OBR,

Over the last 2 years, we have been instructed to disallow the "hybrid" pitching position.  This is where the pivot foot is at 45 deg toward 3rd base and the non pivot foot is in front of the rubber but off to the side.   This is considered confusing to the runner, not knowing if the pitcher is in a stretch or wind up.  However as I read the OP, the pivot foot was parallel to the rubber and in touch with it.  I believe this to be a legal stretch position.

The whole foot positioning thing is such a pain for FED this year - we got a 45+ minute dissertation at our Spring interpretation meeting and then some did their own thing anyway. I even saw "veterans" who were part of the presentation not calling it. They also avoided the other POE - the swinging free arm with a ball in it (some call it the ape arm others call it the elephant trunk arm). There were some that felt in the stretch/set the free foot had to be within the bounds of either edge of the rubber (think drawing a line from the short sides of the rubber straight down the mound - eg a 24" wide area) - that may have been true at some point in time or a misinterpretation of the foot entirely against the rubber.

 

Anyway, in FED it essentially states for a full wind up - pivot foot must be in contact with rubber and non pivot foot "on or behind a line extending through the front of the rubber".  From the full windup - you have a choice to step off properly using pivot foot first and breaking your hands or throw to the plate.   For the stretch/set, the pivot foot must be "entirely in contact with or directly in front of and parallel the pitching plate".  Basically touching from heel to toe (or toe to heel) the rubber.  The free foot has to be "in front of the line extending through the front edge of the rubber". From the set, you can disengage properly, throw to a base, or pitch to the batter.

 

So if a pitcher has his free foot in front of the line extending through the front edge of the rubber, but the pivot foot not completely in contact (eg, the alleged "hybrid" stance), then it's a balk for FED. Typically this is a case where the feet are angled. I've seen pitchers later in the year work around this by standing at the angle, but with the ball of their pivot foot on the rubber and their free foot heel right on that so called line.  Still looks hybrid, but within the rules.  Again, they can only step off or pitch - so there's no advantage here.  Wait for first movement of non pivot foot and go if you're the runner.  React to the step off.

 

So back to the OP - probably not a balk - unless of course it was felt the entire pivot foot wasn't touching the rubber or it was felt the free foot wasn't in front of the rubber (either is tough to tell from 60' 6", but not impossible).  While you cannot argue a balk, you can ask politely what was done wrong.  Then whether you feel it's right or wrong - it's probably going to be a balk for the rest of the day/game - so deal with it. Doubtful you'll get a change of opinion on the field.... Although I suppose it's a rule interpretation and that is protest-able right? As long as you understand the reason for the calling of the balk over foot position.

That's not the hybrid. The hybrid is when the entire free foot is in front of the rubber, and the pivot foot is not entirely in front of the rubber.