Pitcher taking signals.

[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".