Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.
Garth:
How can you call a balk on a pitcher when he has not violated the rules? It is not a matter of semantics. Nothing in the NFHS rules prohibits the pitcher from taking signs while not in contact with the pitcher's plate, but he shall take signs while in contact with the pitcher's plate.
MTD, Sr.
|
I tend to lean toward the "pitching regs start when he toes the rubber" stance. I've basically got a "don't do that" when signs are given off the rubber, if the need arises..
My main reason for posting, though, is that everyone seems to be highlighting "shall" and that emphasis goes against their argument. In my 9 to 5, I have to comply with ISO standards. ISO has a "list" of "shalls." These are things that will be done, bar none. Any deviation from the "shall" is equal to it not being done. The argument that the rule states "shall be taken from the rubber" implies (in my constantly audited to certain standards mind set) that it "shall not" be done otherwise. Basically, "shall" says it's going to be done this way - any other way is not permitted. And that's the way the auditors judge your compliance. I apply this to our rule sitch the same way. What I mean is that the simple use of the word shall is a statement prohibiting anything other than what follows it.
Sorry, too many audits, too many findings based on verbiage in the standards.