Signs of Rubber

[umpire99]

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

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by umpire99

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

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."

[woolnojg]

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?

[scarolinablue]

Originally Posted by woolnojg

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.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by scarolinablue

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."

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.

Originally Posted by woolnojg

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?

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?"

[3appleshigh]

BIGGUY I have a simple question

ARE YOU SERIOUS???

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Since taking the signal must be from the pitchers plate, ...

WRONG!! See my earlier post.

Originally Posted by BigGuy

...to not do so constitutes an action naturally associated with the pitch without the pivot foot on the rubber.

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?

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

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?"

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.

[Rich Ives]

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


Probably the same person that taught him the obstruction rule.

[jkumpire]

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.

[ctblu40]

BG-

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

[bob jenkins]

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.

[justanotherblue]

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.

[jkumpire]

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