Clipping:A tacit understanding not to enforce pitching delivery rules; overhand necessary for a down shoot
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
 |
| Add a Clipping |
| Date | Monday, September 4, 1882 |
|---|---|
| Text | Our Columbus correspondent, under instructions, interviewed Secretary Williams, of the American Association, as to whether he had, as reported, written to Louisville that the rules regarding the overhand throw had been printed in the American Association Book by mistake. Mr. Williams, in reply, says: The facts are: On May 20 Pank wrote me asking if the clause of Rule 23, requiring pitcher’s hand to pass below his waist in delivering the ball, was not put in the printed rules by mistake; saying further, that the had it marked out of his copy that he used at the convention, and that it was intended to have it stricken out. I answered that the rule was printed as adopted. I also said that I had suggested its abolition in the Convention entirely; that it was a dead letter in the League and would be in our Association, and would be better stricken out. There was a good deal of discussion upon it, and it was finally left as it is, but there was a tacit understanding that it could not and would not be enforced, as almost all our pitchers are guilty of violating it, and I am certain it could never have been adopted if had been understood that it was to be rigidly enforced, as it would deprive every club in our Association of a pitcher or two, except Cincinnati. McGinnis, of St. Louis; Mullane, of Louisville; Salisbury, of Allegheny; Sweeney, of the Athletics, and Landis are all guilty of illegal pitching, and almost every pitcher in the League is as well. Even McCormick and White get their hands too high when pitching a “down shoot.” I claim that I was perfectly justifiable in writing the letter to Pank, but that the letter does not say that the rule is printed wrong, and was, therefore, null and void, but that the understanding was that it was not to be strictly enforced. Pank telegraphed me to-day officially as Vice President of the Association, to notify all clubs that the restriction referred to is null. This, of course, I can not do. Have consulted President McKnight about the matter, and will be governed by his decision. There has been no complaint from any club but the Cincinnati, the reason for which will found in the list above, no doubt. They are all in the same boat. |
| Source | Cincinnati Commercial Tribune |
| Tags | |
| Warning | |
| Comment | Edit with form to add a comment |
| Query | Edit with form to add a query |
| Submitted by | Richard Hershberger |
| Origin | Initial Hershberger Clippings |
Comments
<comments voting="Plus" />