Signs off the Rubber
 

Don't have my rulebook handy. What is the FED penalty for taking a sign off the rubber? Rule references appreciated.

6-1-1
 

Taken from 6-1-1: "...He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate. The pitching regulations begin when he intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate."

...in 6-1-3: "PENALTY (Art. 1, 2, 3): The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk."

scblue -
You have correctly identified the penalty for an illegal pitch.
The pitching rules do not take effect until the feet are in contact with the rubber. So how do you justify giving a penalty in the OP?

I probably wouldn't ever call it. How would you really prove when the pitcher actually took the signals? I believe the intent of the rule is to prevent quick-pitching, or deceiving the batter, or preventing delay. However, FED provides for this being an illegal act, so you have that to back you up when the defensive coach comes out to argue after you DO call it.

There IS no penalty for taking a sign while off the rubber: there is also no penalty for taking a sign from the dugout, the pitcher's hot g/f in the stands, or from the Great Hairy Thunderer [or other "higher power"/deity of choice].
There IS a penalty for NOT "taking his sign from the catcher ..." [which is universally enforced as "appearing to take a sign from the catcher"] ... while in contact with the rubber and before beginning the pitching motion.
The enforced intent of the rule is to prevent quick pitches, NOT to outlaw signs from the dugout, etc.
SOOOO... as long as F1 "looks in" and APPEARS to take a sign from the catcher, while in contact and before pitching, DO NOT penalize him for any "extra" sign(s) he may get from elsewhere/when, and DO NOT concern yourself with whether F2 did or did not actually give a sign.

From 6-1-1
He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate.

From 6-2-5
ART. 5... It is also a balk if a runner or runners are on base and the pitcher, while he is not touching the pitcher's plate, makes any movement naturally associated with his pitch, or he places his feet on or astride the pitcher's plate

Since taking the signal must be from the pitchers plate, to not do so constitutes an action naturally associated with the pitch without the pivot foot on the rubber. How do you catch it - sometimes just a nod of the head or shaking the head side to side to change a sign. A lot of guys don't call it for any number of reasons - it's a technical violation, etc. Some won't call it because they don't know the rule. If you call it a a frosh game you'll probably get an earful from the coach - "this isn't varsity, you know" If you don't call it maybe the other team will chirp in and say - "hey, isn't that a balk?"

BIGGUY I have a simple question

ARE YOU SERIOUS???

WRONG!! See my earlier post.

You cannot possibly be serious!?!

Who [name names, dammit, someone deserves serious internet embarassment] taught you this garbage?

You SERIOUSLY need to buy and READ some umpiring references, such as the J/R, Carl's BRD, the PBUC manuals; ANYTHING but relying on the woeful founts of ignorance and misinformation you have depended on heretofore.

Since taking a sign does not involve any movement of hands, arms, feet or legs, it cannot possibly be an "action naturally associated with..." a PITCH! C'mmon... you knew this didn't you?

As before, it seems to be you that doesn't know the rule.

The rule does not say that it's a balk (or IP) for taking a sign from the catcher while off the rubber. I'll give you a billion dollars if you can find a rule that says that.

It DOES say that you must take signs from the rubber - so if a pitcher takes signs from off the rubber, and then takes them (or appears to be taking them - which is what is UNIVERSALLY taught in all clinics (probably with the sole exception of YOUR association, which teaches some other bizarre rule-ignoring that you've mentioned in other threads)) from the rubber, he has done what he is required to do.

Hang around here for a while, you'll learn something.

Who [name names, dammit, someone deserves serious internet embarassment] taught you this garbage?


Probably the same person that taught him the obstruction rule.

Fed Screws Up Again
 

Folks,

Try not to be too hard on the BG here.

Everyone understands that FED writes the rules so any gerbil can learn the rules and umpire, and here is another case where a rewrite of the rule is needed to get rid of the confusion. If FED is going to make the rules simple to follow, the need to rewrite 6-1-1 to say something like: "The pitcher shall mount the pitchers plate and hesitate/take a sign before the time of the pitch in the windup position, or coming set in the stretch position".

If you read the rule, you can see where people could make a mistake and call an illegal pitch. Shoot, most of us probably had a JV game where we almost threw somebody out because they misread the rule. I was blacklisted by a school because I didn't call this as an illegal pitch.

BG-

I am really having a hard time believing that you are serious. The obstruction argument was good, but this is waaaaayyyyy off base.:confused:

BigGuy is right that this is an illegal pitch / balk in FED. It's been on the Part 1 test before. How strictly it's enforced is another issue.

OK, I have to give BigGuy a break on this one. I got one hell of a headache following the other post, but on this one, I have to give him a break, before you guys totally eviserate him. ONLY in FED land that I know of is this distinction made, and put in print. Start with 6-1-1, he's right that in Fedland, you must be in contact with the rubber to take a sign from the catcher. Can he look and get a sign from his girlfriend in the cheap seats, sure, but he must be in contact with the rubber per fed to get his sign from the catcher. How do you know, well as PU, you won't, if you truly look, you can tell, is it worth the argument, not to me. I've seen and allowed pitchers to look into the dugout for his sign, why not, it slows him down. If that coach doesn't care that the catcher doesn't know what is coming, I don't either till I get hit the second time! If I think he is quick pitching, I'll stop it directly, which is probably feds thinking in it's warped way that is. As BU in A, you won't. In B or C, if you look for it you will see it, I would say in almost every JV or under league, you could call it every game if you choose, again, not worth my time unless quick pitching. Why does Fed make a big deal about it, because someone sometime who doesn't really understand the game was/is on the rules committee. Yep, (p.42 of 07 NFHS, for the anal to read it) penalty confirms it. Also 6-2-4C, he quoted the wrong rules reference. It's one of those, yeah I read it, know it and understand it. Do I call it, NOPE not even in the Sunday Mexican league! (It pays good!!) It's not in OBR, J/R, NCAA or any other rules set I have read. AS it is said time and again throughout the board, Umpire with the rules not by the rules, your games will go sooooooo much better and your move up and get far away from the black and blue leagues. As for the guy with 50 years experince etc etc... good for him, he probably should have retired to little league 20 ago. To BigGuy I will say, it's good your scouring the rule book, and reading it. Digest it, think through it, don't live and die by the written word of it, especially the FED rules. Grab a cold one and relax.

Bob, Do you have a Reference?
 

Bob,

Over the years I have looked for a case book play or other way to verify that FED does consider this an illegal pitch/balk, since I know of nobody other than BG who would call it.

I beleive our good frined Carl would call it a "technical balk", if I remember the discussion on the old yahoo umpire group years, and years ago (Unpire Talks, I thinlk the name of the group was, before eumpire).

Any info is appreciated

John

Well, when you completely deny all aspects of judgement in your umpiring, this is the inevitable result.

No, it wasn't. ;)

Here's a question for you all.

How do you know when F1 is taking signs?
How do you know that the "signs F1 is taking off the rubber are the real signs?
How do you know that when F1 steps on the rubber another sign or set of signs is not being given?

The answer is you don't know. And that is the answer that I give to the complaining coach!

As long as F1 does not step on the rubber and into to a quick pitch, he is not violating anything. OBR and NCAA is a "don't do that". FED says balk but as was previously stated, the pitching restrictions don't start until F1 intentionally contacts the rubber so there cannot be a balk.

Most important, go back and read my first 5 lines of this post!

A Stinking Odor
 

I had a spectator behind the backstop watching the game curiously walk toward the nearest dugout in a hurry after the opposing coach requested time and pointed out the spectator's position.

I did feel something "dirty" was going on behind my back but I didn't know what to do about it. How was an umpire suppose to eject a quiet, disciplined spectator when an umpire is not suppose to concern himself with what goes on behind the backstop? I still am not sure what penalty I should have imposed. I have showered but the memory of the event lingers.

Just for the h3ll of it.....

Go back and read mine :mad:

Oh, my.
<comment>

Possible Proof of Big Bang Theory
 

Warning: This post is not to be taken too seriously. It does review similar discussions we have had over similar topics on this website. Hope you enjoy the memories held from personal thoughts while reading previous discussions. Once again, I couldn't avoid the silly temptation.
---------------------------------

I have trouble with the edges of the strike zone and miss a few balls caught right in front of me when I "purposely" call them strikes. I probably needed those strikes. Has this happened to you and your strike zone?

I can't see where a batter's feet are postioned in front of me while he is swinging at pitch on the outer or upper edges of the strike zone. I probably had an idea though. Has anyone ever questioned you about this?

I can't tell whether a coach is standing in the coach's box when I focus on the pitcher's prepatory motion to the plate. I probably didn't care about that anyway, but I will warn and restrict as deemed necessary. Wouldn't you?

I believe baseball signs are both identifiable (to some) and unidentifiable (to others) flying objects. I couldn't physically prove that, but I also know they do travel though the same medium. I could be wrong.

Yet, some guys here will forever deny they have never, ever seen a rising fastball in one breath; but also admit that they will notice and know what goes on underneath the catcher's "equipment" and also behind the back of their "head" in the next breath.

That seems to be a much more difficult task/trick than throwing a rising fastball. JMOHO. As an amateur physicist, I know human x-ray vision doesn't exist without the aide of technolgy. Speaking of peripheral vision, wearing any mask wouldn't physically allow anyone to see behind them. Can you tell how many fingers I am holding behind my back and which one? I could still be wrong unless I were standing in front of a smoking MIRROR.

My apologies to those troubled by the CAPS. If it is the worse thing you have to read, I will edit and/or delete them.

OMG, I have to clean my keyboard. THAT explains everything.

You do nothing about it! Your jurisdiction (unless you are doing MLB or NCAA) ends with the fence. Never, ever take your authority beyond the field's boundaries! We've stated this on this site for years on end!

Right, we are saying the same thing. I was addressing some of the others that seem to have ignored your post.

It also seems that you are a bit higher level than HS ball. I just felt that it was necessary to add that in FED, the pitching restrictions (taking signs is one of them) are not in effect until F1 intentionally contacts the rubber. Therefore, the balk penalty for the FED 6-1-1 (FED rule 6-1-1 - He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate.) is kind of a mute point. How do you penalize F1 for something when he is not restricted yet? It's just another FED mess that has never been straightened out.

Regards

6-1-1 says that he shall take his sign from the catcher while on the pitcher's plate. It does not say anything, however, about what he's allowed or not allowed to do BEFORE taking the pitcher's plate. You are misinterpreting - both the written word AND the intent of the rule.

I sort of remember asking this question to my instructor last year and I believe he had said that there is not any rule against it but if he saw it he would tell the pitcher to stop doing it and if he continued to do it it could lead to an ejection. Now I am assuming that F1 is not stradling the rubber to decieve the runner as that would be a violation as mentioned eairler

test test test

Is anyone else having trouble seeing any posts past Garth's? His, yesterday at 10:25, is the last I can see.

I am posting this to see if it refreshes my display.

Yes, I'm having the same problem.

http://www.amateurumpire.com/mech/mech08.htm

The above link has one of the best explanations on the subject that I've ever seen. Scott Ehret's no stranger to baseball rules either.

Jerry

Don't leave lettice on the keyboard either.
 

kylejt,

Nice shot! :)

My point still stands. FED tries to write the rules in as simple a manner as possible so anyone can get a handle on the rules and umpire. And while that philosophy is a good one (as an instructor of new umpires IMO FED is easier to teach a newbie umpire than NCAA or OBR), it leads to problerms at times, with this rule as a prime example.

They want to have a time for F1 to be on the rubber before the time of the pitch, or coming set from a strech. Or, in other words, no quick return pitches. And what is the best way to explain it? You see their answer, for good or ill.

Old Jock Remedy Prevents Chaffing
 

For years I would insert a hard plastic cup with rubber edges by itself into a XL jock. I often had trouble inserting and removing the cup while wearing the jock at the same time. I found myself "scratching" in public more often than others and for longer periods of time. I also felt the cup chaffing up my underside when worn over longer periods of time. Now that was an embarassing situation for this XXL old man. :(

Now I have discovered an easier solution to these problems. First place the cup into an old leftover jock and cut off the leg straps and waistband. Whala, now the cup will slide easily into and out of its correct position in a new jock. No more trouble with quick cup adjustments and far fewer needs to check its position in view of the ladies. The chaffing issue is also addressed. Please check this out for yourself and pass the info along to others. I use to ruin the leg straps on older $7 jocks much too often. Now I even save money because their lifetime usage has lasted much longer than normal. :o

Place the bong on the floor and back away slowly!


Tim.

SAUmp, Other than the word "rubber" and the subject of baseball, I'm trying to figure out how your last post is even remotely related to this topic? :eek:

Absolutely correct
 

I must confess. Now if the title would have read "Signs from the Rubber" I probably wouldn't have done it. I thought of starting a new thread. I thought of attaching it to the McDavid/Underarmour thread. Yet, not many people on this website want to discuss the finer points of wearing a CUP inside 2 jocks. I knew it wouldn't generate much discussion anyway, beyond the imagery. For example, "If you really wanna take good care of your boys, just follow my simple advice." :rolleyes:

Some have discussed cutting the excess straps off the top of a brand new $60 mask before. Others have discussed cutting the upper-arm guards off a brand new $100 CP. Many have discuss cutting the metatarsal guard off a brand new pair of $120 Wilson leg guards. A few have even discussed cutting the throat padding off a brand new $150 Wilson Platinum CP. Why should I appear a little skittish about cutting the straps and waistband off an old worn out jock? :eek:

I didn't say cut the straps off a perfectly good $8 jock. I still believe it is pretty good advice and I can't remember if anyone else has suggested it before. Is anyone here gonna teach a LLer why he must wear a jock in the first place? The title did read "Signs of Rubber" and so I did what everybody else does. I simply hijacked my way onto this thread. I am sure there is a better place for it, but I am not gonna go out of my way to look. :cool: