I tend to lean toward the "pitching regs start when he toes the rubber" stance. I've basically got a "don't do that" when signs are given off the rubber, if the need arises..

My main reason for posting, though, is that everyone seems to be highlighting "shall" and that emphasis goes against their argument. In my 9 to 5, I have to comply with ISO standards. ISO has a "list" of "shalls." These are things that will be done, bar none. Any deviation from the "shall" is equal to it not being done. The argument that the rule states "shall be taken from the rubber" implies (in my constantly audited to certain standards mind set) that it "shall not" be done otherwise. Basically, "shall" says it's going to be done this way - any other way is not permitted. And that's the way the auditors judge your compliance. I apply this to our rule sitch the same way. What I mean is that the simple use of the word shall is a statement prohibiting anything other than what follows it.

Sorry, too many audits, too many findings based on verbiage in the standards.

Has anyone defined what exactly what a signal is?

(answer: you can't, so all this is just a waste)

I would be more concerned about a possible pick off.

Nope and they won't. To admit to such a simple concept is to admit to deep rooted, long indulged, nonsensical officiating. The Old Guard would rather argue for eons amongst themselves about the ridiculoous than take one, tiny nonegotistical step back and say "Wow, good point, who does define a signal?"

Answer, no one does.

When a coch comes out onyou about this st00pid rule to claim that F1 is in violation by taking "signs" on the rubber, just ask Coach the same thing we have been saying. "what exactly is a signal". He can't answer, why should we?

Nothing mysterious, Garth. I've made this statement over and over here and on other boards.

• I do not care about the signs.
• I do not know when the signs are given to the pitcher. The catcher could be flexing his fingers for all I know! Maybe he is signaling the pitcher for a date! What the hell do I care! :rolleyes:
• I only care about the quick pitch.

I know that you understand what I am saying here. :D

I was with a company that was on ISO standards as well. Let me equate it to this sitch, so that you properly understand the baseball argument here.

If your ISO standards said, "Before placing an order with a supplier, Form 123 shall be filled out properly and signed by the Associate Manager." Now, say your company, before placing an order with a supplier, routinely runs possible orders by the Associate Manager via email, gets his ok, and then fills out the proper paperwork and places the order with the supplier. Has this company broken the ISO "shall"? No, of course not. Same thing in the baseball situation. the pitcher fulfilled his "Shall"... what he did before that is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=mbyron]Have to disagree here, Bob.


2 separate and distinct sentences

Therefore, if F1 is taking "pitching" signs from F2 while his pivot foot is NOT in contact with the Rubber, then it is an illegal act on the part of F1 otherwise why have the rule to begin with.

It is not a "do not do that" rule, however, most umpires will tell F2 to simply "knock it off" but if they continue to do it, then there is a penalty.

Simple example: F1 is straddling the rubber and looking in at F2 where F2 is giving pitching signals ie; to make it simple 1 finger for a fast ball and 2 for a curve ball.

What are you going to call?

If you do nothing and the opposing coach requests time and says "Hey Blue F1 is taking "pitching" signs not in contact with the rubber. How come you are not calling anything.

As mentioned the first time you see this as a FED umpire you are probably going to do preventative umpiring and tell F2 to go talk to F1 or if you notice this as BU get one of the fielder's attention and tell him to instruct F1 to take signs while in contact with the rubber.

However, if F1 does not "heed your advice" the next time he violated the rule then you enforce.

In FED it is not a "Do not do that" rule.

This thread reminds me of the "shoulder turn" balk that FED had until 2 yrs ago or so. many umpires would not call the "shoulder turn" balk.

It's one thing if your HS umpire association as a whole is not going to enforce the rule and it is conveyed to the coaches at the HS meeting but it's quite another for each umpire on his/her own to decide.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]
Pete:

I think you are missing the point that Jim Thompson and I are making and that is the NFHS Rules do not prohibit the pitcher from taking signs from the catcher when not in contact with the pitcher's plate, it just states that the pitcher shall take his signals from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate. Requiring the pitcher to take signs or simulate taking signs from the catcher while in contact with the picther's plate is to prevent a quick pitch. If the picher takes signs while not in contact with the picther's plate is NOT a "stop doing that" because the rules do not prohibit the pitcher from doing it. If the pitcher engages the pitcher's plate and DOES NOT take or simulate taking signs from the cather, then the pitcher has indeed committed a balk.

It is a situation that requires the umpires to not go looking for a problem when no problem exists.

And when the offensive coach requests time to tell me that the pitcher was taking signs from the catcher while not in contact the pitcher's plate I will tell him that the pitcher has not done anything illegal.

MTD, Sr.

Why do we have this argument every 6 weeks or so? It's nuts.

The law says you must stop at a stop sign before proceeding.

It's not illegal to stop 10 feet before the stop sign, as long as you still stop AT the stop sign.

It's not illegal to take signs from behind the rubber, beside the rubber, or freaking third base, as long as you abide by the rule that says you have to take them (read: appear to take them) while on the rubber. EVERY clinic I've ever gone to has covered this. And most of you guys who claim this "nothing" act is illegal have been to plenty. I'm REALLY surprised this is even an issue ... yet it becomes one every couple of months.

I understand where Garth is coming from and agree with him. If I see a pitcher straddle the rubber and then lean in as if to take signs, I'm balking him for simulating a preliminary motion to pitch without being on the rubber.


Tim.

Tim:

Under what NFHS Baseball rule would you use to justify your balk call. I just read Rule 6 and nothing in the rules prevents the pitcher from staddling the pitcher's plate and look in to the catcher as long as he is holding the ball in either his pitching hand or his glove.

MTD, Sr.

Why indeed.

It's the first instance of the term "pitching signs" that I've heard of.

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Therefore, if F1 is taking "pitching" signs from F2 while his pivot foot is NOT in contact with the Rubber, then it is an illegal act on the part of F1 otherwise why have the rule to begin with.


While the others blubber and spout on like whales, now we can get to serious, useful discussion. Is there an interp which says, no rule does, that appearing to be taking signs = taking signs. Appears to be a judgment, ok, if an ump wants go go that route, more power to him.

Wait....a flash....:eek: ...what if the signs are coming from the bench? Or there are no signs at all? Or.........

:D

Once upon a time, in this very forum, in the not-so-distant past, there was a discussion in which it was argued quite successfully that when the rule book says "You shall" do something, it is intimating that to do otherwise is contrary to the rule.

"The pitcher shall" naturally infers that the converse of this act "shall not" be done. It means that if the pitcher is going to take a sign (which is not required, BTW), it must be done while on the rubber. It is not an option to take his signs off the rubber. That is just convoluted logic (no offense to your buddy DeNucci). Just because something isn't spelled out for you doesn't make it legal. That is why the rule is there, to prevent the pitcher from getting his sign and then stepping on and going right away, which may result in a quick pitch.

Here is the way the rule breaks down:

FED: The pitcher must take his sign from the "catcher" while on the pitcher's plate. PENALTY: ball/balk (6-1-1 Pen) Source: BRD

This actually really does mean, "The pitcher must not take his signs (if he receives any) from off the pitcher's plate." There is no need to write this down, as most intelligent human beings understand right from wrong without having to be shown every instance of it.

In OBR it is listed as a "don't do that" pitching infraction, and not subject in and of itself to a penalty. But if I see a pitcher peering in as if getting a sign while off the rubber, followed by a snap throw to first on a pickoff attempt, I'm with Garth...I'm balking this guy.

Mark,

If my judgment tells me that leaning in to take signs is part of a movement naturally associated with his pitch, then the following would apply if he's not on the rubber, would it not?

ARTICLE 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, or positions himself within approximately five feet of the pitcher's plate without having the ball.

Tim.