Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mbcrowder
If you were a logic major, then you would understand that "Pitchers must take signs from the catcher will in contact" DOES NOT EQUAL "Pitchers must be in contact when taking signs from the catcher." If they had meant the latter, they would have put the latter in the book.
|
I didn't know that one could major in logic, and I teach it for a living.
Anyway, the rules writers aren't logicians either: the operative statement is open to two interpretations, and both are false.
"He [the pitcher] shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate."
On one reading, this rule entails that the pitcher must take signs from the catcher. But that's false, since the pitcher doesn't have to take signs.
On another reading, the rule entails that IF the pitcher takes a sign from the catcher, THEN his pivot foot must be in contact. But that's false too (for instance, when the catcher signals how he's going to play with runners on 1st & 3rd).
Some folks have invented the notion of "pitching signs," and tried to interpret the rule narrowly in terms of those; but this term does not appear in the rule book, and in any case it's still false to say that the pitcher must take "pitching signs" in contact (on either interpretation).
Logically, this rule's a mess, and we shouldn't have it at all. We should have only the rules against quick pitches and against simulating a pitch off the rubber.