Is crow hopping now legal

[4KidsDad]

IMO, a good rule clarification would be if the pivot foot/leg takes and bears weight a 2nd time, then it's a re-plant.

I believe this concept is or was in NCAA rules. I don't have those rules.

Position of the arm, ball, glove or feet (or knee) isn't helpful in clarifiying because those things can vary greatly from one pitcher to the next.

Trying to explain illegality using the current NFHS verbiage is impossible---I don't even understand it.

As I posted in another thread just now, NFHS has really botched this.

 

[Comp]

Well if you are from Texas be prepared. They sent out a memo to umpires yesterday that said dont call anything a replant.

 

[mmeece]

Well if you are from Texas be prepared. They sent out a memo to umpires yesterday that said dont call anything a replant.

Do you happen to have something you could share? I haven't seen any additional clarification recently. I will add that one example we were shown in a training as NOT being a replant was clearly a replant in my opinion.

 

[Comp]

Do you happen to have something you could share? I haven't seen any additional clarification recently. I will add that one example we were shown in a training as NOT being a replant was clearly a replant in my opinion.

It was posted on an NFHS forum yesterday but was pulled by moderator because it was state specific.

 

[Dabears17]

During my state rules interpretation meeting, I asked if there was a video of what would be considered an illegal replant after a leap and was told NFHS hadn't provided one.

 

[daywalkerdad]

Love the video...I'm still confused though on the non pivot foot...I'm trying to imagine a scenario where moving that after planting it would create an advantage without another push from the pivot foot. In terms of that second bullet it seems an unecceasary clarification but I suspect there is some logical hole I'm not thinking about that it plugs.

I am confused by that one too. I see the front foot move with a drag and not move with a crow hop.

 

[Comp]

The Texas post was pulled because it said "per NFHS, uil and taso....". Someone had added nfhs into it and it was not from NFHS. It was from uil and taso only.

 

[Chilixa]

Do you happen to have something you could share? I haven't seen any additional clarification recently. I will add that one example we were shown in a training as NOT being a replant was clearly a replant in my opinion.

Yeah I finally got to see a video from NFHS and I am a little disappointed with what they came up with. Their example of legal was basically what most have always considered illegal this whole time. They only seem to care if the front foot moves forward again. They don’t seem to care if the back leg lands bent and pushes again as long as the front leg doesn’t move closer to home.

From a high school perspective now you wonder what the advantage would be if you teach that. But the NCAA I think would disagree with the NFHS Interpretation. It could be a messy transition to college for some. I will not expect anything to be called illegal this year at this point in high school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RADcatcher]

There is the possibility/probability that the back leg being bent does NOT definitively prove a replant. ( AKA a place where they are starting again)

Seems the new ruling verbiage is to discourage Landing Twice AKA Relocating to another location. Which would mean the feet (both) would land and then move again.
Distinguishably move again= relocate a second time.

The front foot is indication of the landing location. If it does not move again (after landing)there is not a second forward progress.
*That is distinguishable....

(While the rear drive leg being bent or otherwise is not distinguishable that it is positively a replant or not)

Once pitcher lands
Pitch from there
That's it
Now hit the ball

 

[Comp]

It appears the post that claimed to be from taso may have actually been from only a chapter of taso.