Pitcher taking signals.

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

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.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

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.

I agree Tim, I am also balking the pitcher and the only thing I can back that up with is a OBR statement "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern," but certainly apppropriate here.

"Deceiving the base runner," which is the ONLY intent of this move.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jicecone

I agree Tim, I am also balking the pitcher and the only thing I can back that up with is a OBR statement "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern," but certainly apppropriate here.

"Deceiving the base runner," which is the ONLY intent of this move.

Hold on. Perhaps you've forgotten the original post. We were talking about a pitcher who took his signs from off the rubber, stepped on the rubber, paused (whether to take another sign, or to simulate that - doesn't matter), and then pitched. How is the "intent of this move" to deceive the baserunner?

I can see stretching the rules you refer to in the case where a pitcher take signs (or simulated it) from off the rubber and uses that to dupe the runner off the base, and then fires to first without having to abide by the rules a pitcher who was ON the rubber would have to abide by. But to balk a pitcher simply for doing something not listed at all in the "it is a balk when..." section, when such action has no effect or intent to deceive the baserunner, is simply OOO, and against every clinic I've ever attended.

[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.

This very clearly intends for the pitcher to only take signs while in contact with the rubber, and at no other time.

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.

[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

[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.

[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".

[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.

[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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Hold on. Perhaps you've forgotten the original post.

If Steve is referring to my posts, we stopped discussing the OP a long time ago.

I have been discussing ONLY a situation in which F1 is straddling the rubber leaning in to take signs as if he were to pitch, or at least come set. With a runner on, this an extemely deceptive move as it could easily appear to the runner that F1 is in contact.

Let me point out, that I have never seen this, and I have never called a balk for an F1 taking signs off the rubber.

However, I am not yet conviced that the move I describe is legal deception.

[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.