Would you have called a balk?
 

I did a varsity game tonight and for the first time I had a pitcher straddle the rubber and lean in to take his signs in a high school game. Of course the opposing coach immediately wanted a balk called since we had an R1 and an R2. I know that technically under 6.1 this is a balk. My question to you is would you have called it. Under OBR it's just a "don't do that."


Tim.

As long as he isn't quick pitching, let it alone. The intent of the rule is to keep the pitcher from quick pitching. It's an argument no matter what you do.

Tim,

Once when I was writing an article on (non-) balks, I asked Carl Childress a similar question. His response was along the lines of (paraphrasing here...)

"Well, it is, but it isn't (a balk under FED rules). I've never called it & I've never seen it called. It's kind of a 'faux' balk."

With consideration to the caveats offered by justanotherblue, I wouldn't call it either.

JM

Technically, it is a balk if runners are on base. That said, I'm not calling it.

FED 6.1 [clipped] He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate.

PENTALTY: 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.

Can you explain to me why it's not a balk under 6.1? I agree wholeheartedly with not calling it, but I wonder why you feels it's not a balk.


Tim.

There are a myriad of balks under FED rules that are called either infrequently or not at all. Do you call the "gorilla arm swing."


Tim.

Where is the illegal pitch?

Doesn't the penalty phase at the end of 6.3 encompass all of 6.1? The penalty addresses not only an illegal pitch, but also an illegal act as spelled out in 6.1 through 3.


Tim.

I don't know how to make it any plainer for you. The rule states that "He (the pitcher) shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate."

The penalty for not doing so is an illegal pitch if there are no runners on base or a balk if there are runners.

Carl thinks so. See item 378 in 2006 BRD. In OBR it's a "don't do that" pitching infraction. However, I still wonder, since the penalty is applied following an illegal pitch and if he is just taking the sign without his pivot foot on the rubber there is no illegal pitch, yet. Is it an illegal pitch to just take a sign? He hasn't pitched.

Anyway, regardless of ruling I have never seen this called in FED and have never had a coach argue for a balk to be called.

Tonight was the first time I've seen it argued for as well. I think the manager was on edge after I balked his pitcher for turning his shoulder after coming set. He was just fishing for a call.


Tim.

If you're asking about a pitcher coming set with his glove above his chin, no, it's not something usually called here. And that was the point I was trying to make to you when I asked about the "gorilla arm." There are items that we could call a balk and don't. I believe my situation tonight was one of those times.


Tim.

I am posting to the original quote of Tim so we can get back on track here.

Let's start with the FED 6-1-1 portion that deals with the question.....

FED 6-1
ART. 1 ... The pitcher shall pitch while facing the batter from either a windup position (Art. 2) or a set position (Art 3). The position of his feet determine whether he will pitch from the windup or the set position. He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate.

****************************************

Now we will proceed to the PENALTY at the end of FED ART 3....

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.

****************************************

Now to answer some of the questions posted to the thread (not you Tim, I know that you know the rules here). FED 6-1-3 PENALTY is the penalty for violations of any of pitching rules in FED 6-1 ART 1, 2 & 3 PERIOD!
People, please don't try to read into anything further, this is the penalty for the first 3 Articles of FED 6!

Also, I looked into the FED Casebook (sometimes I wonder why they even bother printing it) and they speak ad-nausium of F1 taking signs but alas, it seems that the FED assumes in each case that F1 is in proper contact with the rubber. Why should they assume otherwise? All the FED coaches properly instruct their players with the proper procedures of the FED, right?

So Steve, back to you. We are in agreement that in FED, if F1 is taking his sign off the rubber is indeed a balk! We (because of past discussions) also agree that it is a frivolous balk call and that OBR is correct in calling it a "don't do that!".

Now after all that, Steve, I'll answer your question: "Would I have called it?". My answer to you and the opposing coach is simple - I have no idea when F1 is in fact taking his sign! F1 can be standing there and F2 can be flexing his fingers for all I know (or care). Just as long as F1 does not Quick Pitch, there will not be a problem. Now I'll tell you this, if a coach complains to me once, both F1's from that point had better be aware that I and my partner will be watching the rest of the game. If F2 so much as flinches with F1 straddling the rubber, we will balk the hell out of F1 (and I've done it in several Varsity and sub-varsity games in the past).

Regards

It's been on the FED test before -- and the answer is that it's a balk (with runners on base). I've seen it called. I've never called it.

I think the FED's reasoning is that if F1 is looking in for the signs, he's acting like he is on the rubber. This influences the base runner's lead, and gives F1 some additional leeway that he wouldn't have if he were on the rubber. This is "too much" of an advantage for F1, so it needs to be penalized.

For what it's worth, in the house league where I do some games, at the 13-14 level we are instructed to give one balk warning per pitcher. I have no problem calling time and going to the mound and explaining what they did wrong and how to do it right. The pitchers and the coaches thank me for it. We have more and more younger kids these days who have no clue about the mechanics of pitching. The coaches are just as ill informed. The fact of the matter is that some will pitch in HS and above, and the sooner they understand the better. There are times when you know when the pitcher is taking signs (and they do it at this level) because they will nod their head or turn it side to side. Is it nit-picking, certainly - but as I said earlier the sooner they understand the better.

I did two games last night and issued balk warnings (neither for taking signs off the rubber) in both games and called one balk, after the kid continued to utilize the same mechanic. I could have ignored it. The reason I don't is because I want the kids to learn proper mechanics because in the end it will make them better players and certainly more knowledgeable, with the hope that they will continue to show interest in the game.

And under NCAA rules, it's a ball to the batter, with or without runners on base. That's less of a penalty, but I'd still just quietly tell the pitcher to make sure he's on the rubber when he takes the sign.

Speaking of nit picking
 

It's also a balk if in the set position the pitcher separates his hands BEFORE clearly stepping back with his pivot foot.
However many times the pitcher is clearly separating while in the process of stepping back.
Do you balk this if the pitcher is simultaneously stepping off and separating?
I don't balk it and I've never had a coach comment on it.
I think it's the least known balk rule known to a coach.

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.

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).

Ozzy
How is it that before the coach complains you cannot discern or care when F2is giving signs, but after he complains you have crystal clear discernment?
IMO in this sitch, if it's worth calling after a complaint, it's worth calling before the complaint (or at least worth addressing)
I know there are some very subtle deceptive moves an F1 may have that we might not see or recognize and when brought to our attention we may then penalize if F1 continues, but to let a coach dictate a call on such a blatent act is giving him way to much influence.
And IMO it's a dead wrong call to balk for taking signs off the rubber unless he also fails to take a sign once he engages the rubber

(color added to Ozzy's quote for emphasis)

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


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.

Because OBR lists no penalty for the violation in 8.01

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

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

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)

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

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


Tim.

What does one have to do with the other?


Tim.

That's easy Don. I am not the pitcher so as I stated he could be staring at a "babe" for all I know while F2 is flexing his fingers. I'm not in F1's head.

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.

I agree, but I was referring to the last sentence of your post.

"Now I'll tell you this, if a coach complains to me once, both F1's from that point had better be aware that I and my partner will be watching the rest of the game. If F2 so much as flinches with F1 straddling the rubber, we will balk the hell out of F1 (and I've done it in several Varsity and sub-varsity games in the past"

He's still looking at the same "babe" but now you're balking him.
So either you have better discernment after the complaint or you thought you knew it was a balk all along and you're letting the coach dictate when to call it.
Curious as to which it is?

It's kind of like the coach that pi$$es about the other coach being out of the box. If one complains they both have to suffer. Don't worry, When the coach complains about F1 taking his signs off the rubber, I'll give him the same spiel about looking at the babe. If he still insists, then I guess my partner and I have to look harder! :D

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.