Quick pitch ?

FED 6-1-3 (the set position)

...he (the pitcher) shall come to a complete and discernible stop


PENALTY (6-1-1 6-1-2 6-1-3)

The ball is dead immediately...if no runners, a ball is awarded the batter, if there is a runner, such illegal action is a balk.

History: Back when Brad Rumble was in charge (I'm showing my age), he created the FED philosophy that if an action is illegal, it is illegal, period; meaning if an action is illegal with runners on, it's still illegal with no runners. What changes is the penalty.

So, by rule what you describe is not a quick pitch necessarily, but it is an illegal pitch and the penalty by rule is a ball to the batter.

I would add that this is probably one of the most inconsistently enforced rules in FED.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:
History: Back when Brad Rumble was in charge (I'm showing my age), he created the FED philosophy that if an action is illegal, it is illegal, period; meaning if an action is illegal with runners on, it's still illegal with no runners.

...and that's what happens when people tinker with the rules ignoring or not knowing their intent.

quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy03:

History: Back when Brad Rumble was in charge (I'm showing my age), he created the FED philosophy that if an action is illegal, it is illegal, period; meaning if an action is illegal with runners on, it's still illegal with no runners.

Even though the action is illegal BECAUSE there are runners. FED just doesn't think things through.

Thanks for that very interesting piece of FED history.

It was one of my LCD rules I talk about. Other rule sets it is not illegal to not stop with no runners. FED still has that interesting clich. I think Brad's idea was it was easier to umpire if it was always a penalty, however it puts it at odds with everything else therefore making it harder.
As to presenting it at the rules clinic, I would still bring it up but see if you can get it clarified that it is an illegal pitch, not a quick pitch.

Thanks for taking the time to fill me in on this.

>> I had a young pitcher that only threw from the stretch. With no men on base he usually didn't come to a full stop before delivering the ball. <<

That's because of the epidemic, atleast in the Chicago area, of umpires ignoring the rules of foot position (see second sentence of FED pithing rules), and allowing the MLB "TV" stance. Pitchers on "TV" stand with their non-pivot foot in front of the rubber with no runners on and just go. I hear it all the time, even at clinics, ignore it if it is a "non-issue". (whatever that means). Why am I such a stickler on it? Take last year in a varsity game between two very competitive teams. I told the home team pitcher, between innings, what he was doing (w/ no runners on). The home plate ump then told me "with no runners on - not to worry about it". OK. Then guess what that same (RH) pitcher did a couple innings later with a man on third? Went into his version of the windup with the non-pivot in front of the rubber/not stopping. I said "balk" and sent the runner home. The coach came out and conceded that, even though other umps don't call it - that "blue is right on this one" (to his pitcher). So, now I'm a bad guy. This bad guy syndrome is something that really needs to be addressed IMHO. I tell the coach to get everybody in the dugout except the on-deck. Now he hates me even more. I really don't like hearing it in situations like this (and for the real reasons why); give it to me when you think he was safe on the steal - not because I call the rules.

All I can say is there would be two they didn't like if I had been there. I will chase guys in the dugout in a heartbeat. As far as the wind-up, be careful. The difference is in the direction of the feet. If the free foot points toward the plate, it is a wind-up. If it points toward third it is a set.