Pitcher taking signals.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Here is J/R's take on this:

[color=blue]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.

If you were a logic major, then you would understand that "Pitchers must take signs from the catcher will in contact" DOES NOT EQUAL "Pitchers must be in contact when taking signs from the catcher." If they had meant the latter, they would have put the latter in the book.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If you were a logic major, then you would understand that "Pitchers must take signs from the catcher will in contact" DOES NOT EQUAL "Pitchers must be in contact when taking signs from the catcher." If they had meant the latter, they would have put the latter in the book.

I didn't know that one could major in logic, and I teach it for a living.

Anyway, the rules writers aren't logicians either: the operative statement is open to two interpretations, and both are false.

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

On one reading, this rule entails that the pitcher must take signs from the catcher. But that's false, since the pitcher doesn't have to take signs.

On another reading, the rule entails that IF the pitcher takes a sign from the catcher, THEN his pivot foot must be in contact. But that's false too (for instance, when the catcher signals how he's going to play with runners on 1st & 3rd).

Some folks have invented the notion of "pitching signs," and tried to interpret the rule narrowly in terms of those; but this term does not appear in the rule book, and in any case it's still false to say that the pitcher must take "pitching signs" in contact (on either interpretation).

Logically, this rule's a mess, and we shouldn't have it at all. We should have only the rules against quick pitches and against simulating a pitch off the rubber.

[GarthB]

Congratulations all!

I've received word that it is very likely that FED will place this on the agenda to make clear that this (my scenario) is not allowed.

There seems to be agreement that "there's taking signs while not in contact and there's taking signs while not in contact."

The third clinician said, "The current rule does not recognize to what extend pitchers will go to cheat. It was intended to address the casual, upright taking of signs while not on the rubber. We will need to address more explicitly those pitchers who really are pretending to be on the rubber as they lean over to take their signs while not in contact. As of now, hile "not in contact" is not a balk in and of itself, I would say there is an argument that could be made that they are simulating their pitching motion."

(Edited to add: Heard again from the second interpreter. He also is recommending that FED revist the wording of this rule.)

[SanDiegoSteve]

Of course, reading is fundamental. I never said I majored in Logic. Boy, what a workload that would be! I said I got a really good grade in Logic at the university level.

Until someone posts an authoritative opinion contrary to my position, I maintain that my interpretation is the correct one. If I turn out to be wrong, I will humbly apologize for the errors of my ways.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If you were a logic major, then you would understand that "Pitchers must take signs from the catcher will in contact" DOES NOT EQUAL "Pitchers must be in contact when taking signs from the catcher." If they had meant the latter, they would have put the latter in the book.

So, what you are trying to say is that everything that is in the rule book is clearly written, and every possible way of interpreting the rules is spelled out within its covers?

I would like to point out what I've been hearing for quite some time now in that there are 230+ errors in the rule book. Some of the wording is archaic. Many rules are written very poorly and are in need of a major rewrite. That is why it is necessary to have all these alphabet soup interpretation manuals.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by jicecone

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.

There is no such thing as a true "Do Not Pitch" signal in FED or OBR. The FED has now made it a dead ball when this is signaled. When you hold up your palm toward the pitcher you have in effect called "Time" and killed the ball.

If the ball is already dead, then that's alright to do. When the ball is still alive, however, it is not recommended to hold your hand because you kill the ball and any possible play that might have occurred. For instance, the runner at first was just about to take off for second, but you killed the ball. Not good.

If a pitcher isn't paying attention as the batter is getting set in the box, I will tell him verbally to wait until the batter is set before starting his delivery.

[Rich Ives]

From the coaching box:

1) We don't want quick pitches. That's only part of the issue. It's as much about

2) As to deceiving a runner, the requirement that the pitcher not be within about 5 feet of the rubber without the ball (FED) is so the runner knows when the pitcher has the ball. If the runner knows the pitcher has the ball and still gets picked off before the pitcher starts to move to come set, I say it's because the runner is either a) improperly coached, b) has his head in the wrong place, or c) stupid. You really don't want to start any significant lead until the pitcher starts a "stretch" and you sure as hell must always pay attention.


BTW, for thise old enough, the National League used to allow signs prior to engaging, while the AL required the pitcher be engaged. The NL adopted the AL rule.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

BTW, for thise old enough, the National League used to allow signs prior to engaging, while the AL required the pitcher be engaged. The NL adopted the AL rule.

Rich, I think this just about proves my point if this is correct. Can you elaborate on this please? I am interested in how the NL allowed signs prior to engaging, but no longer allow this.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Rich, I think this just about proves my point if this is correct. Can you elaborate on this please? I am interested in how the NL allowed signs prior to engaging, but no longer allow this.

I can't elaborate too much - the change happened 45-50 years ago or so.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Anyway, the rules writers aren't logicians either: the operative statement is open to two interpretations, and both are false.

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

On one reading, this rule entails that the pitcher must take signs from the catcher. But that's false, since the pitcher doesn't have to take signs.

Agreed, which is why the 2nd interp is correct and true.

Originally Posted by mbyron

On another reading, the rule entails that IF the pitcher takes a sign from the catcher, THEN his pivot foot must be in contact. But that's false too (for instance, when the catcher signals how he's going to play with runners on 1st & 3rd).

You've misquoted the rule!

The rule says "his sign" meaning the sign specifically intended for F1, not signs given to the team in general or to the infield.
So when F2 gives the pitcher "his sign" F1 must be on the rubber.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Some folks have invented the notion of "pitching signs," and tried to interpret the rule narrowly in terms of those; but this term does not appear in the rule book, and in any case it's still false to say that the pitcher must take "pitching signs" in contact (on either interpretation).

It is a narrow rule.
When F1 takes "his sign" from F2 he must be in contact with the rubber.
And some folks use the the term "pitching signs" to be more descriptive and plain about "his sign" which is in the rule book and clearly intended to mean the sign indicating which pitch is to be thrown which can logically be called "pitching signs".

[Tim C]

Now:

It's discouraging to think umpires are having problems with pitchers taking signs while off the rubber. While there is a provision in the NFHS rules to call a balk it is confusing at best; while Official Baseball Rules may authorize an umpire to warn/eject a pitcher for repeated violations, in the real world I've not seen that happen in the 39 years I've umpired -- and I'm pretty hard-core.

Let's consider the purpose of the rule. It's designed to eliminate the possibility of a "quick pitch" by forcing the pitcher to: (a) step on the rubber, then (b) do something else before he can (c) deliver to the batter. Let's also realize that nothing in the rulebook prevents the pitcher from taking a sign from his catcher, coach, father or favorite pet whether he is on or off the rubber.

Frankly, umpires should not be concerned with such things. Our goal should be to ensure that the pitcher first takes a legal pitching position, then allows the batter a reasonable opportunity to prepare for a pitch before the pitcher delivers. Since we (I hope) agree or acknowledge that the pitcher can take a sign or other information before he steps on the rubber, I submit there is no realistic way for umpires to determine that he is not getting an additional sign from his catcher after he gets on the rubber. After all, anything from the position of the catcher's glove to the smile on his face might be the "fast ball" sign.

As long as the pitcher allows the batter reasonable time to get ready, there should be no problem. If you are having trouble with pitchers quick-pitching, the rules offer umpires plenty of power to enforce penalties.

Just my opinion,

Regards,

[GarthB]

Tee:

I have no argument with the original reason for, and intent of, the rule. I would agree that it is a non-issue. As I said earlier, I have never felt the need to enforce this rule.

I do, however, have issue with the rule being used to allow a deceptive pick-off move.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Now:

It's discouraging to think umpires are having problems with pitchers taking signs while off the rubber. While there is a provision in the NFHS rules to call a balk it is confusing at best; while Official Baseball Rules may authorize an umpire to warn/eject a pitcher for repeated violations, in the real world I've not seen that happen in the 39 years I've umpired -- and I'm pretty hard-core.

Let's consider the purpose of the rule. It's designed to eliminate the possibility of a "quick pitch" by forcing the pitcher to: (a) step on the rubber, then (b) do something else before he can (c) deliver to the batter. Let's also realize that nothing in the rulebook prevents the pitcher from taking a sign from his catcher, coach, father or favorite pet whether he is on or off the rubber.

Frankly, umpires should not be concerned with such things. Our goal should be to ensure that the pitcher first takes a legal pitching position, then allows the batter a reasonable opportunity to prepare for a pitch before the pitcher delivers. Since we (I hope) agree or acknowledge that the pitcher can take a sign or other information before he steps on the rubber, I submit there is no realistic way for umpires to determine that he is not getting an additional sign from his catcher after he gets on the rubber. After all, anything from the position of the catcher's glove to the smile on his face might be the "fast ball" sign.

As long as the pitcher allows the batter reasonable time to get ready, there should be no problem. If you are having trouble with pitchers quick-pitching, the rules offer umpires plenty of power to enforce penalties.

Just my opinion,

Regards,

What Tee wrote was so obvious to me I didn't think it worth mentioning, but I was probably wrong.

I do not, WILL NOT allow a pitcher to pitch until a batter is ready. If the batter is looking down, for example, I will not allow a pitcher to pitch. I've had obnoxious rats scream, "he can pitch whenever the batter's feet are in the box."

Bull poop. The only reason a rat would want that would be to catch a batter unawares, which is unsafe and against the spirit of the game.

If a batter isn't ready and the pitcher starts his motion, simply call time. Not too hard to do.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Tee:

I have no argument with the original reason for, and intent of, the rule. I would agree that it is a non-issue. As I said earlier, I have never felt the need to enforce this rule.

I do, however, have issue with the rule being used to allow a deceptive pick-off move.

Any runner that gets picked off before F1 comes set deserves exactly what he gets.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It's almost like Bill Clinton saying, "it depends on the definition of what is is." What is the definition of "shall," and what does it imply?

One of the Ten Commandments is "thou shall honor thy father and mother." If you do something to dishonor them, you are going against the commandment. It didn't need to say, "now if you dishonor them, you are in violation." That part is simply an understood second part of the first statement.

The same thing applies to "The pitcher shall take signs form the catcher while standing on the rubber." It implies understanding that the signs are to be taken on the rubber, and nowhere else. If they meant for him to take the signs from the catcher anywhere else, they would have said, "oh, and he can take them off the rubber too. We just thought we would tell you to take them from the rubber, but we didn't really mean it."

When someone uses the word "shall," it means that is the way it is to be done. Period. Not done another way.

Yes, he can get signals off the rubber from the man in the moon if he so chooses, but not from the catcher.

And no, it is not that big of a deal, as long as he does not quick pitch the hitter.