Starting, then stopping, the windup.

[tjones1]

Originally Posted by ctblu40

But in their infinite wisdom, they allow the pitcher to go to his mouth while in contact with the rubber... they are geniuses at FED HQ, you gotta admit.

Not in Illinois.

[bossman72]

PA says it's a ball any time the pitcher goes to the mouth while on the rubber whether he wipes or not (except after he's come set or assumed one of the windup positions, then it's a balk). So pretty much it's exactly like the pro rule except replace "18 foot circle" with "rubber" in the wording of the rule.

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by bossman72

PA says it's a ball any time the pitcher goes to the mouth while on the rubber whether he wipes or not (except after he's come set or assumed one of the windup positions, then it's a balk). So pretty much it's exactly like the pro rule except replace "18 foot circle" with "rubber" in the wording of the rule.

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

In Illinois the IHSA says it's still a balk. Bringing the hand up is the start of the pitching motion. Balk.
I never had a problem of pitchers doing this when it was illegal anyway.

And this is exactly the problem with the NFHS rule(s). Same code, different interpretations. If FED would stop tinkering with the rules, we wouldn't have this.

[Illini_Ref]

Originally Posted by tjones1

Not in Illinois.

I went to the last rules meeting in Illinois on the 15th. The IHSA had new information for the going to the mouth rule. It seems that the NF has made a mess of this rule. We were told to disregard any NF publication in reference to this rule. Here is Illinois guidelines, and they were not this way at the early rules meetings.

Nobody on. Pitcher on the rubber. Goes to his mouth then touches the ball. Dead ball. Ball to batter.

Nobody on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth, wipes off, goes to ball. Nothing

Runners on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. Dead immediately. Balk.

I'm guessing the latter is because of the movement, not because he went to his mouth.

[DG]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

Runners on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. Dead immediately. Balk.

I'm guessing the latter is because of the movement, not because he went to his mouth.

Here it is:

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. BALL

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber and set, both hands in front of his body. Goes to mouth. BALK, not for going to his mouth but for separating his hands after being set.

[Illini_Ref]

The IHSA rules interpreter said that in Illinois we are to call a balk immediately with runners on and the pitcher goes to his mouth. With no runners it is a BALL only if he fails to wipe off.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by DG

Here it is:

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber. Goes to mouth. BALL

Runner on. Pitcher on rubber and set, both hands in front of his body. Goes to mouth. BALK, not for going to his mouth but for separating his hands after being set.

I agree with your second interp. I do not believe your first is correct *IN IL* (I don't know what state you are in).

[DG]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I agree with your second interp. I do not believe your first is correct *IN IL* (I don't know what state you are in).

North Carolina

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Illini_Ref

I went to the last rules meeting in Illinois on the 15th. The IHSA had new information for the going to the mouth rule. It seems that the NF has made a mess of this rule. We were told to disregard any NF publication in reference to this rule.

This is a major problem. Often times we are told by assignors or interpretors (either association or state) that some rules are subject to more lenient enforcement.

But what happens when you don't call whats written in the book and are questioned by a manager as to why you're ignoring a certain rule? Is there going to be a protest that will be upheld?

For this example, "Blue, that's a balk! You gotta call that!" In response, the umpire steps in it and says, "I know that's what's written, but I was told to let it go."

Are we going to be backed up? I would hope so, but there are no guarantees. This, IMO, is hanging the officials out to dry. Why not just follow OBR in this case? I see no safety issue, so is the NFHS just being stubborn?

[Gmoore]

Illinois requires a coach attend the rules meeting so they have heard the same thing we have, and should not have to deal with that of a coach saying but in the book it states.......

Originally Posted by ctblu40

This is a major problem. Often times we are told by assignors or interpretors (either association or state) that some rules are subject to more lenient enforcement.

But what happens when you don't call whats written in the book and are questioned by a manager as to why you're ignoring a certain rule? Is there going to be a protest that will be upheld?

For this example, "Blue, that's a balk! You gotta call that!" In response, the umpire steps in it and says, "I know that's what's written, but I was told to let it go."

Are we going to be backed up? I would hope so, but there are no guarantees. This, IMO, is hanging the officials out to dry. Why not just follow OBR in this case? I see no safety issue, so is the NFHS just being stubborn?

[ctblu40]

Originally Posted by Gmoore

Illinois requires a coach attend the rules meeting so they have heard the same thing we have, and should not have to deal with that of a coach saying but in the book it states.......

I am familiar with a coach who knows just as much, if not more, about the rules than a lot of umpires. Try sneaking that by him in a game and I'll bet he'd call you on it.

Any comment JM?

[Gmoore]

I was not implying sneaking anything past any one I was just stating that Illinois has the coaches’ attend the rules meeting.

The umpire would not have to tell the coach that it states one thing in the rule book and the umpire is calling it another way.

By state association they have adopted a different interpretation of the current rule.

[blueump]

It would be interesting to see how the FED responds to a written statement from IL that they refuse to call this.

At my rules interp meeting we got the following

Off the rubber - wipe - NO PENALTY
Off the rubber - no-wipe - BALL
On the rubber - no runners - either way - BALL
On the rubber - runners - either way - BALK

They have basically said they are ignoring the rule change and reverting to last year.

These interpretations came off of the IHSA rules interpretation powerpoint presentation.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

At my rules interp meeting we got the following

Off the rubber - wipe - NO PENALTY
Off the rubber - no-wipe - BALL
On the rubber - no runners - either way - BALL
On the rubber - runners - either way - BALK

They have basically said they are ignoring the rule change and reverting to last year.

These interpretations came off of the IHSA rules interpretation powerpoint presentation.

If that's from the meeting at the UMPS clinic, then the IHSA ruling has been changed since then.