|
First, to Roger I apologize. I did not mean my post as a personal attack,
but you had put the words so nicely in your post to requote................
Still, while you say you would have the pitcher "replaced", I'd find a balk more relative. If I'm not going to eject a player, then I don't know of anywhere in the rules or rulings that provide me authority to tell a coach where his players may or not play while they are still eligible for a position per the rules. Yet, under 9.01(c), I'd support your decision if you were to choose that avenue of enforcement.
I disagree with Jerry. 9.01(c) allows an official to rule on any point not specifically covered in the rules. A penalty for not meeting the criteria of 8.01 is not specifically covered. That allows enforcement to fall under 9.01(c).
Although you may choose a different alternative, an umpire choosing to apply a balk to the situation in question is not wrong. He, in fact, is exercising his rights granted under 9.01(c). Frankly, I would advocate a balk after warning(s) for amateur baseball. I can truly say that in 23 years of umpiring I've never judged the action of pitcher in taking signs off the rubber as being willfull and deliberate action to ignore an umpire's instructions. Usually it's some dufus on the rubber who knows little about pitching. Still, the issue should be addressed and not allowed to continue. Calling a balk is a slap on the hand; ejecting the player is the death penalty for him. The players are there because because they want to play baseball; not because they are getting paid to play baseball.
IMO, ejecting an amateur pitcher for this action is nonsense and not congruent with CSFP. Applying a balk after warning(s) IS using CSFP. Since the action is covered under pitching regulations, it could be reasoned that a pitcher is gaining an advantage while taking signals off the rubber. A balk could be considered a penalty imposed elsewhere when a pitcher gains an unintended advantage. Still, I would not argue with an umpire who might elect to declare a ball on a batter for such pitcher's action. Bottom line, it's the perogative of the official per 9.01(c).
Now, if you want to tell me that the situation IS specifically covered elsewhere, than that certainly undermines the use of 9.01(c). If that's the case, please cite the rule, ruling, or caseplay.
Just my opinion,
Freix
|