Pitcher taking signals.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Read Bob's post again. He very carefully separated the two parts of the move contained in the OP and then describe to different manners in which the first part could be accomplished.

What he is calling a balk by rule, I believe, is a pitcher simulating motions associated with pitch while not in contact with the rubber.

Garth: I don't think taking signs is a "movement naturally associated with his pitch." Ordinarily that phrase refers to pitch-like movement (windup, coming set, delivery, etc.). Words have meanings, right?

We all know in OBR this is a "don't do that." Barring authoritative opinion to the contrary (case play, interp, etc.), I see no rationale for it to be anything else in FED.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

The relevant rule is 6-1-1, and the relevant sentence is:

The penalty listed in 6-1-1 is for an illegal pitch, which as you know occurs only if the pitcher quick pitches.

Not true in FED. In FED, many acts are illegal pitches (including all violations of 6-1-1, 2, 3), and all illegal pitches are balks if runners are on base.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I reread your play. You said originally that F1 took signs while straddling the rubber. Now you said he was in contact. Which is it?

Either way, if no quick pitch was involved, it's a "don't do that." (regardless of what the "rule" says.) Send F2 out to the mound to tell Bozo to take his signs from on the rubber so everyone will be happy campers. Sometimes I'll just tell the catcher not to give the pitcher his sign until he gets on the rubber, and usually F1 gets the hint.

Like Ozzy said, I don't see when the catcher gives the sign, nor do I care if he did or didn't get a sign at all, as long as he doesn't just step on the rubber quickly and quick pitch the batter.

Steve,
When are you going to hit him with a balk - when he takes signs while off the rubber - OK, but I'm not sure that's great management. Denucci goes on to say that once F1 is on the rubber, he takes signs from F2. From my standpoint, I don't really care what he does off the rubber in this case, I do care what he does while on the rubber. Granted, this is coming from someone who is primarily softball - so many nuances are lost - but I think that in this case, I only care what happens when he is on the rubber.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Garth: I don't think taking signs is a "movement naturally associated with his pitch." Ordinarily that phrase refers to pitch-like movement (windup, coming set, delivery, etc.). Words have meanings, right?

We all know in OBR this is a "don't do that." Barring authoritative opinion to the contrary (case play, interp, etc.), I see no rationale for it to be anything else in FED.

Many people cite the penalty phase for 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3. PENATLY (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.

From article 6-1-1: 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 set position. He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate. The pitching regulations begin when he intentionally contacts the the pitcher's plate.

There is more, but it is not relevant to the situation......

Notice where it says intentionally contacts the rubber. That is when the pitching regulations starts. For practical purposes, the pitcher is considered an infielder until he toes the rubber. If he was to throw the ball into dead ball territory it would be a two base award. So can an infielder balk?

There is more. ART. 6-2-5, 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 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.

So is this any movement associated with his pitch?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Garth: I don't think taking signs is a "movement naturally associated with his pitch." Ordinarily that phrase refers to pitch-like movement (windup, coming set, delivery, etc.). Words have meanings, right?

We're not connecting yet. Bob paints a picture of a pitcher on the mound, then bending over to take his signals all while stradling the rubber.

This is extremely deceptive to a runner who may easily assume that the since the pitcher is getting his signals, he's on the rubber. If this were allowed, the pitcher could then just "fling" the ball without disengaging and without stepping to the bag. This, imo, does qualify as movement naturally associated with a pitch. What are you waiting for...for him to stand up?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by Steve M

Steve,
When are you going to hit him with a balk - when he takes signs while off the rubber - OK, but I'm not sure that's great management. Denucci goes on to say that once F1 is on the rubber, he takes signs from F2. From my standpoint, I don't really care what he does off the rubber in this case, I do care what he does while on the rubber. Granted, this is coming from someone who is primarily softball - so many nuances are lost - but I think that in this case, I only care what happens when he is on the rubber.

I never said I would hit him with a balk at all for taking signs off the rubber. I said that only if he quick pitched the batter would I have a balk. I don't care if he gets a sign or doesn't get a sign personally. If someone complains about the pitcher taking his signs while off the rubber, I will instruct the catcher to go out and explain the rule to the pitcher so he just does it right and everybody is happy. I, as the umpire, couldn't really care less as long as F1 doesn't quick pitch the batter.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Bob paints a picture of a pitcher on the mound, then bending over to take his signals all while stradling the rubber.

This is extremely deceptive to a runner who may easily assume that the since the pitcher is getting his signals, he's on the rubber.

What makes you think most runners know the rule requiring the pitcher to be on the rubber when taking signs? I'll bet Joe Morgan doesn't know . It has been my experience that most players have a very limited grasp on most advanced rules. I would also submit that a runner should be watching the pitcher rather closely to determine whether or not he is on the rubber by looking at his feet, not by whether or not he is taking signs.

I tend to nip taking signs off the rubber in the bud by telling the catcher not to give signs until F1 engages the rubber.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

What makes you think most runners know the rule requiring the pitcher to be on the rubber when taking signs? I'll bet Joe Morgan doesn't know . It has been my experience that most players have a very limited grasp on most advanced rules. I would also submit that a runner should be watching the pitcher rather closely to determine whether or not he is on the rubber by looking at his feet, not by whether or not he is taking signs.

I tend to nip taking signs off the rubber in the bud by telling the catcher not to give signs until F1 engages the rubber.

It's not important if the runner knows the rule, it's important that I do.

I think Bob has painted two distinct scenarios. In the first, the common one, the pitcher is standing upright taking signals while not in contact with the rubber. Simple, fix...don't do that.

The second, I believe is entirely different. The pitcher is leaning forward taking his signals just as he does in his normal pitching procedure. This is different. This is deceptive. This is a balk with runners on in FED.

[Steve M]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I never said I would hit him with a balk at all for taking signs off the rubber. I said that only if he quick pitched the batter would I have a balk. I don't care if he gets a sign or doesn't get a sign personally. If someone complains about the pitcher taking his signs while off the rubber, I will instruct the catcher to go out and explain the rule to the pitcher so he just does it right and everybody is happy. I, as the umpire, couldn't really care less as long as F1 doesn't quick pitch the batter.

Steve,
I tend to tread very lightly when I speak baseball - I'm a softball type who does some baseball. But,
"If someone complains about the pitcher taking his signs while off the rubber, I will instruct the catcher to go out and explain the rule to the pitcher so he just does it right and everybody is happy."
Again, if F1 is taking signs from F2 while on the rubber, I am fat dumb, & happy. I don't care what happen prior to that.. But if F1 toes the rubber & goes, I've got a call to make. If that's what we're both saying, than please excuse my ignorance...

I hate fat fingers - and having to go back late & correct them.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

When I started the this thread I already knew how I was going to answer the question if it was asked of me. The reason I posted the quesiton is that it was brought up yesterday afternoon in a Fall baseball league for H.S. players. The umpires for this league are assigned by the H.S. umpires association of which I am also a member.

My younger son (freshmen in H.S.) was the starting pitcher in his team's second game of a DH. In the first inning with a runner on first base, my son straddled the pitcher’s plate with the ball in his pitching hand and looked at the runner on first base then looked to his catcher then looked back at the runner at first base and then looked to his catcher. He then engaged the pitcher’s plate with his pivot foot and took his signal from his catcher and then proceeded to pitch to the batter. This is a regimen that he has done since he started pitching. When the inning was over the BU came over to his coach and told him that he could not take signals from his catcher while he was straddling the pitcher’s plate. Since I knew both of the umpires for the DH, I did not say anything about their misapplication of the rules. (I just gave my position away, didn't I.)

As I stated in my original post, NFHS R6-S1-A1 states that: He [the pitcher] shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate. Nothing in the rules prohibits a pitcher from taking a signal from the catcher or even looking at the catcher while straddling the pitcher's plate (of course that presumes that the pitcher is holding the ball while straddling the pitcher's plate.

After I made my original post, I remebered that there had been a thread about the pitcher taking signals while not in contact with the pitcher’s plate on the NFHS Officials' Discusion Forum, http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...;f=10;t=001034. The thread ran about 50-50 as to whether the pitcher was committing a balk or not. I did not contribute to that thread but I remembered that Jim Thompson (a past member of the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee) posted that the pitcher had not balked. In fact, Jim stated that the pitcher can take a signal from anywhere he likes as long as he takes or simulates taking a signal from the catcher after he has come into contact with the pitcher's plate.

Now here is where I really get to name drop. Jim and I first met seven years ago at an AAU Boys' Baseball National Championship tournament becuase we both are friends of the tournament's UIC. So last night I sent an email to Jim about this situation and Jim called me earlier this evening.

Jim told me that to his knowledge the NFHS's position is that it is not a balk, because it is not prohibited by rule. That is the key to this play. While the pitcher shall take his sign from the catcher while in contact with the pitching plate, it is not prohibited, by rule, for the pitcher to take a sign from the catcher while not in contact with the pitching plate. The key is that the pitching rules do not take effect until the pitcher comes into contact with the pitcher's plate, therefore the important thing is that the pitcher takes or simulates taking a sign from the catcher while in contact with the pitching plate before he starts his pitching motion.

So, the best thing to do is don't go looking for problems where there are none.

MTD, Sr.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Let me be clear here. The majority of the times I have encountered pitchers taking signs off the rubber, they have invariably quickly engaged the rubber and went right into their motion, thereby quick pitching the batters. They never take their signs off the rubber and then engage the rubber and take their time. Their taking signs off the rubber has been to gain an advantage not intended in the rules, and thereby defeating the purpose of the rule in the first place.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Let me be clear here. The majority of the times I have encountered pitchers taking signs off the rubber, they have invariably quickly engaged the rubber and went right into their motion, thereby quick pitching the batters. They never take their signs off the rubber and then engage the rubber and take their time. Their taking signs off the rubber has been to gain an advantage not intended in the rules, and thereby defeating the purpose of the rule in the first place.

Steve:

You just made my case. Taking the sign while not in contact with the pitcher's plate, is not the infraction of the rule in your case. Quick pitching is the infraction and their rules that take care of that situation. But taking a sign while not in contact with the pitcher's plate is not against the rules.

MTD, Sr.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Steve:

But taking a sign while not in contact with the pitcher's plate is not against the rules.

MTD, Sr.

I will make my last comment in this thread with this....it depends how it is done.

It may become a semantics issue, and the act may be the symptom rather than the cause, but a balk can certainly be called while the pitcher is, in some form, taking signs while not in contact with the rubber.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I will make my last comment in this thread with this....it depends how it is done.

It may become a semantics issue, and the act may be the symptom rather than the cause, but a balk can certainly be called while the pitcher is, in some form, taking signs while not in contact with the rubber.

Garth:

How can you call a balk on a pitcher when he has not violated the rules? It is not a matter of semantics. Nothing in the NFHS rules prohibits the pitcher from taking signs while not in contact with the pitcher's plate, but he shall take signs while in contact with the pitcher's plate.

MTD, Sr.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

I do not know when F1 is getting his signs from F2, nor do I care! The rules (under all 3 codes) are there to prevent F1 from quick pitching to the batter.

Okay, so I fibbed. Onen more.

Ozzy, what's so mysterious about BU in B or C seeing F1 leaning in to take signs when not in contact with the rubber? Are you assuming that the PU would be doing this?