Skinny on FED Going to Mouth Change
 

Hello again,

Sadly, this year for some reason I was not invited to the annual local rules interp meeting the state organizations holds. So, I am still confused on all the ins and outs of the change in the going to the mouth rule in FED.

My imnpression:

Very little difference:

1. If nobody on base, doesn't wipe before he puts a hand on the ball or gets set, it's a ball.
2. If someone is on base,
A. He has not gotten set on the mound (i.e. before he takes a sign) goes to his mouth, ball.
B. If he has come set, or finished his preliminaries to pich, then goes to his mouth, Balk.
C. If he is not on the mound w/runners on, goes to his mouth and doesn't wipe off, Ball (not a balk as it used to be).

On the NFHS board, there is a long, and frankly confusing discussion, since I guess the Rules committee did not really get what they wanted in the change. The Case Book and FED web site interps are also incorrect. Okay, fine by me, so what is it FED and or your state wants called?

Thanks a lot!

jk,

from what i understand, you are correct on all of those examples, however, if the pitcher wipes off before touching the ball in any of those examples, there is no violation (except B, it's a balk for separating hands).

Also, if he is on the rubber taking signs, goes to his mouth, then wipes, legal.

I'm 90% sure i've gotten these right. We get our new rule/case books tomorrow, so i'll know for sure.

Nevermind,

Listen to Tee. haha

It has not been explained that way here. If a pitcher is on the rubber and goes to his mouth it's a BALL, regardless of whether we have runners, or if he wipes afterward.

If he is in contact with the rubber with runner on, has his hands together and separates to go to his mouth, it's a balk, not becuase he went to his mouth but because he separated his hands after coming set.

It is clear FED wants to be more lenient with pitchers who go to their mouth, but why I don't know.

:eek: Errrrrrrr, I sure hope he could.......yeesh ;)

This is the way we had it "FED" to us in our rules interpretation meeting with the SCHSL. We all agreed it was poorly written, but any going to the mouth that doesn't also involve another illegal act shall result in a ball being added to the count. The addition of another illegal act (such as the separation of hands after coming set without delivering the pitch) would constitute a balk.

And, if somebody starts whipping off on MY field, they can stay in the dugout and take care of that!

Here's the story I got...

Our local association's rule interpretor followed-up with the state and national NFHS representatives to help clarify this point. Much of the confusion stems from the fact that the Case Book play covering this is in error. The same incorrect Case Book play was distributed in the NFHS "Preseason" baseball packets widely distributed to its members.

- Case Book play 6.2.1 situation A, part (b) is incorrect.

This example play states that a pitcher going to the mouth while engaged on the rubber is illegal.

That was the ruling for previous years. That Case Book play was inadvertantly left in the book and is in direct conflict with the 2007 rule change. The error was not discovered until the Case Books had been printed and distributed.

- The 2007 interpretations on the NFHS website are correct and reflect how this rule should be called.

The two examples where an engaged pitcher goes to his mouth and a balk is subsequently called involve the pitcher doing something else that is a balkable offense.

For example, after coming set with his hands together, the pitcher separates the hands to lick his fingers. It is a balk because of the hand separation, not for going to the mouth while in contact with the rubber.

- The correct ruling for 2007 is that a pitcher engaged on the rubber may go to the mouth.

If he wipes off there is no penalty. If he fails to wipe, the ball is dead and the penalty is a ball added to the batter's count. This is no longer enforced as a balk.

[QUOTE]I do not know about the rest but IMO this type rule falls under the category of "nit-pick'n" and IMO one should not spend that much time on as there are other more important matters / rules that should be focused on during HS Assoicating meetings .

Yes the FED made an error but at least in my area this is a non issue. Preventative umpiring can avoid this.

The main problem comes "into play" when you umpire leagues that are OBR based and the kids pitching are used to FED rules. A prime example is in legion ball where they have a hybrid of rules but the pitching regs are OBR based. Some F1's without thinking do what they did in HS, however, in OBR F1 must not be in the 18ft. circle when going to the mouth.

Again preventative umpiring can avoid this.

Side Note: One of my pet peeves in association meeting is that too much time is taken up discussing these type rulings when Mechanics / Game management skills should be focused on.

Pete Booth

Thankfully, my local association spent a few minutes on this- along with the other 2007 rule changes- in our first meeting then moved on. Our interpreter had got the info on the botched Case Book rewrite before the meeting, so that conflicting issue didn't garner much discussion.

Our local meetings do generally stay on-point and don't wander off into "what-if's", war stories or third world plays. If something warrants further discussion we hold it for after the scheduled agenda.

I can see where there might be some confusion about this new rule. The FED has issued one set of interpretations, but issued a conflicting one in their Case Book and in their preseason informational materials. It's bound to create some confusion when two diametrically opposed interps are issued for the same rule.

This rule has generated a long, and somewhat absurd, discussion on the NFHS baseball discussion boards at their website. Apparently many states are either misinterpreting this change, accepting the erroneous Case Book play as accurate, retaining bits and pieces from last year's rule or choosing to reinvent their own versions of how this should be called.

But you are right, Pete. Hash it and move on! With the limited amount of time most associations get with their members, there are more important things to cover that can have a much more positive effect on how games are called and managed.

My question is: how the helll does FED f*ck up these rulings every year in the casebook? Doesn't Elliot Hopkins proofread the new casebook entries? Shouldn't he at least WRITE the case book entries? How do the interpretations get screwed up every year? This is a shotty operation they have running over there regarding their publications.

If they would stop f**king around with this disgusting habit (pitchers licking thier fingers) and make it like OBR, we could all get on with our lives!

Here's the rub with the way the FED has set things up: If a pitcher gets a new ball (pearl) from the umpire, and goes down on the grass and spits on his hands and then goes right to the ball (doesn't wipe off) with the intent of "rubbing up " that new ball, it's a ball on the batter. They make no allowance for on the dirt, off the dirt, live ball, dead ball, or any timeframe. If he goes mouth-to-ball without wiping, it's a ball.

They've also said that if the pitcher is on the rubber with runners on base, and is working from the set position, if he reaches up to lick his fingers (goes to his mouth) before he comes set and does not wipe off, it's a BALL on the batter. Hmmm... That should be a BALK since he starts his hand up and then stops.

In Illinois we've revised the FED position to say essentially this: If the pitcher is in contact with the rubber working from the WINDUP position WITH NO RUNNERS ON BASE and he goes to his mouth and then the ball without wiping, it is a BALL on the batter. That is the ONLY time he will be penalized with a BALL - he must be in contact with the rubber with no runners on base. If he is working from the SET position and goes to his mouth (either before OR after he comes set), it will be a BALK, because he has started his hands and stopped.

The better choice for the FED IMHO would have been to just go to the Pro rule, or else leave it alone. The way it's written now is just too restrictive (when the intent of the change was to make the penalty more lenient). That's why we are going with a different interp in Illinois.

JJ

What prevents them from doing so? We have adaptations to FED rules in WI in all sports.

It would seem you are confusing modifying the rules with changing an interpretation of a rule left unmodified.

Fed states that member associations may modify the rules. (There is a penalty for that, however) But, FED does not sanction states changing the interpretations of rules.

Forgot last year's mess with the "gorilla arm", didn't you Tee? There was no unanimous enforcement from State to State on that issue either. It seems that every State Board has a different opinion, couple that with the rules interpreter for each board and you can get a real mess!

Hail, hail FED-landia. Land of the free and brave! (ala Marx Bros Duck Soup)