Pitcher taking signals.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Just for the record, I have never called a balk for an F1 taking signs off the rubber either. I only tell the catcher to wait until the pitcher gets on the rubber before giving him a sign, and that only to prevent a quick pitch.

I also have never required the pitcher to take any kind of sign, just to give the hitter time to get ready.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

No, the pitcher has to step on the rubber and allow the batter to get reasonably set in the box. This gives runners plenty of time to get their leads.

If I see a pitcher try to pull the quick step on and pitch act, I will surely not allow them to do it. I will call "Time" every time I see a pitcher try a quick pitch, whether it is intended to fool that batter or the runner, it makes no difference to me.

SDS:

After you call "time," then what are you going to do?

MTD, Sr.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by jicecone

This may be a have to see it situation first, but if I feel in any way that the pitchers straddling of the plate is to deceive the runner, I'm balking him.

jicecone:

Please quote the NFHS Baseball Rule that says this is a balk?

MTD, Sr.

[LomUmp]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Here is J/R's take on this:

Pitchers:

• a) must take signs from the catcher while in contact.
• b) cannot habitually disengage the rubber after taking a sign,
• c) upon disengaging, must separate their hands.

No penalty is mandated or suggested for violation of (a) through (c). Such action is simply prohibited.

Hey all,

In a), I agree that it's intended purpose is to prevent a quick pitch.

In c), my understanding is that, at this point, the pitcher would already be in the set position, not taking signs from anyone. How many pitchers have you seen take signs with their hands together in the set position?

If there is no penalty, why be concerned?

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Also, the following is a balk:

It is a balk when the pitcher:
15......... tries to deceive a runner or the batter by imitating and throwing a pitch while not in contact with the rubber, or by quickly stepping on the rubber and pitching without taking a sign. Such actions constitute an illegal pitch.

Notice that the penalty is for quickly stepping on the rubber and pitching. If the pitcher does not quick pitch the batter, no sign would be required.

Perhaps this stuff about "simulating taking a sign" just means pause to let the batter get reasonably set in the box. That's my take on it.

The rule quote seems to apply if you know when the sign is given. In the case of the "one pitch" pitcher the sign could be F2 letting F1 know he's ready to receive the pitch, not the traditional fingers for the type of pitch signs. If you don't know when the signs are actually given, the only thing left to judge, as per the topic, is the quick pitch.

LomUmp

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

jicecone:

Please quote the NFHS Baseball Rule that says this is a balk?

MTD, Sr.

Mark:

I have forwarded the situation I am addressing to three respected FED clinicans. I've heard back from two so far. One agrees with me that this would simulating his the beginning of his pitching and would be illegal deception. Balk.

A second sort of agrees with you by saying:

Garth:
You are right in that there is no specific penalty givren for taking signs while not in contact with the rubber. Also, the book is very adamant that pitching restrictions begin when the pitcher is in contact with the rubber (it USED to be when he took his signs, but not all pitchers take signs, so that was tough to enforce).

But then he adds:

That being said, I believe that you can negate the put out by essentially claiming that the pitcher “gained advantage through illegal action.” Although there is no specific penalty for the illegal action, he cannot benefit from it either. I would simply state that the rule states that the pitcher shall take signs while in contact with the rubber, and that his pick-off was not valid.

I'll let you know when I hear from the third one.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Mark:

I have forwarded the situation I am addressing to three respected FED clinicans. I've heard back from two so far. One agrees with me that this would simulating his the beginning of his pitching and would be illegal deception. Balk.

A second sort of agrees with you by saying:

Garth:
You are right in that there is no specific penalty givren for taking signs while not in contact with the rubber. Also, the book is very adamant that pitching restrictions begin when the pitcher is in contact with the rubber (it USED to be when he took his signs, but not all pitchers take signs, so that was tough to enforce).

But then he adds:

That being said, I believe that you can negate the put out by essentially claiming that the pitcher “gained advantage through illegal action.” Although there is no specific penalty for the illegal action, he cannot benefit from it either. I would simply state that the rule states that the pitcher shall take signs while in contact with the rubber, and that his pick-off was not valid.

I'll let you know when I hear from the third one.

Garth:

Once again, what NFHS Rule applies? I can't believe a rules interpreter would make such a statement: "You are right in that there is no specific penalty givren for taking signs while not in contact with the rubber. ... That being said, I believe that you can negate the put out by essentially claiming that the pitcher “gained advantage through illegal action.” Although there is no specific penalty for the illegal action, he cannot benefit from it either."

If the action is illegal, what NFHS Rule says it is illegal?

MTD, Sr.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Garth:

Once again, what NFHS Rule applies? I can't believe a rules interpreter would make such a statement: "You are right in that there is no specific penalty givren for taking signs while not in contact with the rubber. ... That being said, I believe that you can negate the put out by essentially claiming that the pitcher “gained advantage through illegal action.” Although there is no specific penalty for the illegal action, he cannot benefit from it either."

If the action is illegal, what NFHS Rule says it is illegal?

MTD, Sr.

Again, Mark, It's a judgment call as to whether or not the umpire feels that F1 leaning in to take his signs while not in contact is part of his preliminary motion to pitch. If we feel that it is, then Article 5 of FED rule 6 allows for a balk to be called. It's not the straddling of the rubber that's the problem. It's the pitcher leaning in simulating he's on the rubber that's at issue. Based on the situation your presented about your son, I would agree that there was nothing to support the umpire's decision to put a stop to it. But, had your son leaned in, I could see a balk being called.



Tim.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Garth:

Once again, what NFHS Rule applies? I can't believe a rules interpreter would make such a statement: "You are right in that there is no specific penalty givren for taking signs while not in contact with the rubber. ... That being said, I believe that you can negate the put out by essentially claiming that the pitcher “gained advantage through illegal action.” Although there is no specific penalty for the illegal action, he cannot benefit from it either."

If the action is illegal, what NFHS Rule says it is illegal?

MTD, Sr.

Just for giggles, Mark, tell me: If you see a pitcher ignoring a rule that says he must do something, and thereby gets an advantage and picks off a runner...you're just going to say.."Smart move?"

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

SDS:

After you call "time," then what are you going to do?

MTD, Sr.

I'm betting he's going to balk him if there are runners...............


Tim.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

jicecone:

Please quote the NFHS Baseball Rule that says this is a balk?

MTD, Sr.

There is none, just as there is none that says I can not call a balk.

Again, I would have to see it.

I know technically you are correct but, step away from the fact that the pitcher is your son and that in a game you officiate, you will allow deception by a pitcher to gain an advantage in a sport that has never allowed this to happen. At least as far as I know.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I'm betting he's going to balk him if there are runners...............


Tim.

I'm betting not. Perhaps if some of you that so strongly defend never kicking dirt off the rubber would do so, then the runner could see if the pitcher was straddling the rubber.

BTW-6-2-5 doesn't apply to this situation. Straddling the rubber is not a motion associated with a pitch. The key word is motion. Standing still and straddling the rubber is not motion.

And one more thing. It is the catcher giving the signs when the pitcher is off the rubber. Why penalize the pitcher? This a simple FED rule that many are butchering.

Not a balk. Never has been and never will be.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I'm betting he's going to balk him if there are runners...............


Tim.

It really depends on the level. In some lower levels, and if I feel that the pitcher simply doesn't know better, on the first such offense I will usually call "Time" and instruct his coach to tell him to take his signs on the rubber and allow the batter to get reasonably set in the box [Rule 8.05(e) comment].

In big boy ball it is most assuredly a balk for an intentional quick pitch designed to hinder either the batter or a base runner.

[LomUmp]

Hey all,

Would any of you balk this scenario...why or why not...

F1 gets ball after play is over. R1 no out, and gets a sign from the bench/F2 on the way to the rubber. F1 quickly goes through the motions and appears to be getting a sign, but is not. F1 then comes to a set and throws the pitch. Batter is ready, but barely. R1 is still trying to get his lead when the pitch is delivered.

I would say no because the intent of the rule, preventing the quick pitch, is not broken since B2 was ready.

LomUmp

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Four pages, and no one has stepped up to define what a sign is.

Here is how I determine what a sign is. Assume I am in the B or C position so I can see both parties.

• F1 contacts the rubber and looks to F2.
• Any movement that F2 makes (or lack thereof) would be a sign (in my opinion)

It's that simple! This is why I cannot understand the hang-up everyone has about "signs from the catcher".

To address the latter part of this discussion, F1 straddling the rubber as if taking signs then picking off a runner would be a balk.

Regards

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by LomUmp

Hey all,

Would any of you balk this scenario...why or why not...

F1 gets ball after play is over. R1 no out, and gets a sign from the bench/F2 on the way to the rubber. F1 quickly goes through the motions and appears to be getting a sign, but is not. F1 then comes to a set and throws the pitch. Batter is ready, but barely. R1 is still trying to get his lead when the pitch is delivered.

I would say no because the intent of the rule, preventing the quick pitch, is not broken since B2 was ready.

LomUmp

First of all it is just NOT important where the pitcher gets his signal from, even if it's from outerspace.

Second, any good official as a PU, is just not going to let this happen. I personnaly will be given the pitcher a "Do Not Pitch" signal until B1 is ready. Then I will point to the pitch and sometimes verbally say "Pitch." MOST of the time, the pitcher will begin to take their sign and then begin their pitching motion. In your scenario the pitcher will just come set and then pitch but, remember the pitcher has to come to a complete stop with a baserunner.

So as you see this is just not happening.