View Single Post
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sun Apr 28, 2002, 07:35pm
buckweat buckweat is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 37
Quote:
Originally posted by Randallump
Quote:
Originally posted by etbaseball
buckweat -

Now if they fail to comply, you have the authority to eject them for unsportmanlike conduct.

I found it very easy to control this matter by speaking with the catcher and letting him know that he is not to give any signals to the pitcher until, and unless, he is on the rubber. Bingo, problem dissappears.



This is what I was taught in the 5 week pro school I attended some time ago. The correct mechanic was:

Time!!! Get on the rubber!!!!

BTW, another example of this concept is when the pitcher, in the set position, starts with his hands together. Again, just don't allow it to happen.
I want to make it absolutely clear that the last thing I want to give anyone the impression of is that I'm criticizing officials. In fact, quite the contrary. The very good answers I've seen to this issue prove to me that this is not an officiating problem, but rather an administrative and bureaucratic one.

The answer I think is positively the best is, that it be controlled from the first occurrence and that will take care of it 99% of the time. However, there are things that one just has to accept given the current state of the rules that I find very difficult to accept.

I'm a big believer in definitions. I've looked in the OBR and although the work "unsportsmanlike" is used 4 times, there is nothing that defines it. that means its another one of those nebulous "judgement" things that get everyone in trouble.

I'm not talking about writing a dissertation that covers every conceivable kind of UC, but something very general like a lot of the other definitions. For instance. UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT is any conduct which could cause injury, denigrates any participant, violates established rules, causes damage to personal property, or by its nature is not in the spirit of fair play.

My guess is in umpire schools or casebooks, there is something like that, so why keep it a secret? As long as the decision remains with "blue" why not make it clear to everyone?

I'm also not a big believer in hearing the reasoning that some rule is just ignored because it doesn't apply anymore. That just evading the issue. If the rule no longer is a good one, get rid of it and then there won't have to be case book items on it and people who go to different umpire schools won't be getting taught different things.

The "straddling the rubber" issue is so silly at it base that I'm almost ashamed to be arguing about it. if a pitcher does it, it violates a rule. it is so similar in nature to the other reasons balks are called, why not just list it as a balk and be done with it? That way there's no controversy and it would probably be one of the easiest balks to understand.

By definition a balk_ "is an illegal act by a pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base."

Straddling the rubber and talking signs is an illegal act, just as a quick pitch is an illegal act. If a quick pitch occurs with no runners on base, the penalty is the pitch will be called a ball. Inadvertently dropping the ball with runners on is a balk and with nor runners on is a ball. Why make the penalty for a violation of something an ejection?

I guess without the benefit of studying umpiring and actually working games, I'm getting hung up on 8.05, "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner."

Since there are penalties for the same illegal acts whether there are runners on or not, why not just do the same with straddling the rubber and taking signs?

Oh well, I guess all I can say is thanks for the insight.
Reply With Quote