Would you have called a balk?

[mcrowder]

Not a balk, not a balk, not a balk.

A rule stating that the pitcher must take signs from the rubber (and generally interpreted as "must at least simulate taking signs from the rubber") does NOT mean he cannot take signs from elsewhere first. This (by itself) is NOT a balk.

Now ... say he takes the sign, then steps on the rubber and immediately pitches without pausing, then he has failed to take or simulate taking signs from the rubber. THEN you have a balk.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Not a balk, not a balk, not a balk.

A rule stating that the pitcher must take signs from the rubber (and generally interpreted as "must at least simulate taking signs from the rubber") does NOT mean he cannot take signs from elsewhere first. This (by itself) is NOT a balk.

Now ... say he takes the sign, then steps on the rubber and immediately pitches without pausing, then he has failed to take or simulate taking signs from the rubber. THEN you have a balk.

Not in FED, Mike. It's a balk to take signs while not in contact.


Tim.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Notice at the end of 6-1-3, it says for an illegal pitch (catchall phrase) it gives the penalty.

Go read the definition of illegal pitch in Rule 2. It doesn't require a pitch.

Taking the signs off the rubber, in my opinion is simply a rules violation. Why do you think it warrants a, "Don't do that" in OBR.

Good point. This must be the first example of a difference between the codes.


It *is* an illegal pitch in FED, by rule. Whether it's called or not is a different issue.

[LMan]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Why do you think it warrants a, "Don't do that" in OBR.

Because OBR lists no penalty for the violation in 8.01

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Not in FED, Mike. It's a balk to take signs while not in contact.


Tim.

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately that doesn't agree with the rulebook.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I cannot understand why everyone is arguing so hard for a balk they never call.

Especially one that is not illegal by the rule in the book.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately that doesn't agree with the rulebook.

From the BRD:

SIGN TAKEN OFF PITCHER'S PLATE

FED: The pitcher must take his sign from the "catcher" while on the pitcher's plate. (6-1-1) PENALTY: Ball (no runners), Balk (with runners). (6-1-1 Penalty)

NCAA: Same as FED. EXCEPT PENALTY: Ball. (7-5d) If the batter and all runners advance following a pitch from the illegal position (pivot foot not on the pitcher's plate), ignore the infraction. (9-2j Penalty).

OBR: The pitcher must take his sign while on the pitcher's plate. Penalty: None listed. (don't do that)

[SanDiegoSteve]

And no, I've never called it a balk either.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

The BRD also states that you cannot have coaches interference on a dead ball. I suppose if a base runner misses third or first on his way around the bases and the coach grabs him and throws him back to the base, the defense will not complain if they see the infraction and lose their right to appeal.

What does one have to do with the other?


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

That the BRD is not the final say on all rule interpretations. It is a source of research that bring different interps together and only one person's opinion. You said the coach was fishing for a balk call after you balked his pitcher earlier. It sounds like you were fishing for an attaboy for not calling a balk that you are arguing vehemently is a balk, technically speaking. You will get in more trouble calling balks than you will for not calling them.

I guarantee if you ever call this in a game you will be picking more nits than a father-son spider monkey team that knows a National Geographic film crew is following them.

What I was debating was you telling me that it's not technically a balk when in fact it is. I e-mailed a friend who has served in passed years on the NFHS rules committee and as an advisor to Elliot Hopkins. He's assured me that the NFHS does consider this a balk. Enforcement is another matter as some will call it while others will not. I was just curious to see what others here felt about it. I don't let worrying about "trouble", as you put it, dictate what calls I make. I am, however, concerned that I call my games using an accepted standard where common sense and fair play are at a premium.


Tim.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Thanks for the input. Unfortunately that doesn't agree with the rulebook.

In your opinion, which by the way doesn't weight very heavily with the BRD.


Tim.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I cannot understand why everyone is arguing so hard for a balk they never call.

Some do call it (post #16)
I think it's a good idea to know exactly which interp you're going to live by and be able to defend in case a coach does make an issue of it.

For those who think taking a sign off the rubber by rule is an immediate balk I ask the following questions:

Which signs are F1s obligated to take from the rubber?

The sign from the catcher to his middle infielders indicating any play he may put on in the event R1 attempts to steal?
Does the pitcher have to close his eyes so as not to see this sign while off the rubber to avoid balking? I don't think so

If he closes his eyes he may miss the sign indicating bunt defense. Does the bunt defense sign qualify as a sign that must be seen while only on the rubber? Probably not

The pickoff sign? Maybe
The sign indicating which pitch to throw?
YES that's the one

The rule says:
"He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate"

So he can look at and see the signs for all the infielders while off the rubber but he must take ""his"" sign from the rubber.
I don't plan on quizzing F2 every time I see F1 looking at him and asking if he's giving F1 "his" sign.

As for me, I have no idea what signals the catcher is flashing prior to F1 stepping on the rubber and like Ozzy I don't care. As long as once F1 steps on the rubber he takes or pretends to take "his" sign I'm cool.

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

Not a balk, not a balk, not a balk.

A rule stating that the pitcher must take signs from the rubber (and generally interpreted as "must at least simulate taking signs from the rubber") does NOT mean he cannot take signs from elsewhere first. This (by itself) is NOT a balk.

I agree wholeheartedly!!

FED 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. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball.
It isn't an illegal pitch unless F1 fails to take a sign from the rubber. IMO he can communicate with F2 all he wants prior to engaging the rubber as long as he at least pretends to after engaging.

Now if F1 does anything else in combination with taking the sign from off the rubber that simulates his normal pitching routine I do have a balk. Not technically because he's taking signs but because he's simulating his pitching routine from off the rubber and deceiving the runner(s).