Quote:
Originally posted by Roger Greene
John,
If using OBR then it is not a balk.
|
I don't know why people say this is not a balk.
The penalty, if any, for not taking signals while on the rubber is unaddressed. While some advocate warning him and then ejection if further action persists, I find ejection of an amateur pitcher for his lack of concentration or habit as an extreme.
While appropriate to eject a player or coach for willful and persistent violation of an umpire's orders, I don't think this is a situation where the action is willfully ingnoring the umpire.
The situation is not specifically addressed in OBR.
It seems those words should ring a bell to most and coincide with 9.01(c). It is left up to the umpire's judgment. Therefore, if the umpire elects to penalize with a balk, then so be it. It is NOT wrong, although others may elect to take different avenues.
Myself, I'd provide plenty of warnings before applying any penalty, still, if the offender continued the actions I'd let it be known the action would be considered a balk. I'd choose that option before ejection. That's my perogative per 9.01(c), and I feel it shows far more CSFP than to eject a pitcher because he lacks ability or concentration to the technicalities of pitching.
Baseball is about playing the game, and it shouldn't be impacted by needless ejections. Let me know the outcome next time you dump some 10 yr. old kid because he's taking signals while off the rubber. While many preach it on the web, I'd hope it's never been done. Why have a penalty that is not prescribed that makes you look like a total a$$hole? And believe me, ejecting some 10 yr. old kid for this reason would make YOU look like a total a$$hole.
Just my opinion,
Freix