Quote:
Originally posted by Roger Greene
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Just speculating is all, but the more you force me to think about it the more I'm inclined to believe there is sound logic behind forcing pitchers to take signs only from a position of contact with the rubber.
Cheers.
|
I don't think I want to go there, Warren. There are too many worms in that can.
Roger Greene
|
Why? Either you accept that the original intent of the rule was to speed up the game or not. If you do, then you need to enforce the intent. Of course there is an amount of sign taking that will go on with the pitcher off the rubber, especially from managers, but generally and practically speaking I have presumed that we are dealing with taking signs from the catcher and that becomes obvious and easily dealt with.
The most common infraction is to see the pitcher keep his pivot foot behind the rubber while leaning in to take his signs from the catcher. That allows him to keep the runners, especially R1, anchored to their bases until he's almost ready to pitch. That's an advantage not intended under the rule, especially if you accept Scott Ehret's explanation of the original intent.
No sensible runner takes even a primary lead until the pitcher is in contact with the rubber. If the pitcher can take signs off the rubber, then step on and only have to ensure that the batter is ready before pitching what recourse does a runner, especially R1, have for being denied his lead off? The obvious consequence is that batters will start requesting time and backing out of the box to force the process back into balance.
For me this is falls into the same category as granting the defense time to throw the ball back to the pitcher in junior ball. It is an attempt to control the pace of the game and gain advantage not intended under the rules. Why shouldn't we look to enforce a rule prohibiting that?
Cheers