Pitcher taking signals.
 

NFHS Rules only for now.

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.

Play: R1 and the F1 stradles the rubber with the ball in his pitching hand and looks at F2 who gives him some pitching signals. F1 then engages the rubber and again takes pitching signals from F2. Has F1 committed a balk?

MTD, Sr.

Supposedly by FED rules it a balk. This rule is basically a deterrent against the quick pitch. I'm not looking for anything like this. Very poorly worded in the FED rule book in my estimation. You will get many varying opinions on this subject.

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.

Ozzy:

Reread my original play. F1 did not quick pitch. F1 took signals from F2 while in contact with the rubber before starting his pitching motion. How is this quick pitching?

MTD, Sr.

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.

Define "signals".

fitump is on the right track. You can't define signals. If you have a first and third situation, and the catcher steps up and goes through his gyrations for the infield, is that a signal? Yup. If he goes down and taps his shinguard for pick-off, is that a signal? Yes sir it is.

This is a poorly worded rule, that FED, in it's never surprising stupidity, adopted from OBR. If there was one part of OBR that didn't need to be moved over it was this one. Dumb, and dumber.

Play: R1 and the F1 stradles the rubber with the ball in his pitching hand and looks at F2 who gives him some pitching signals. F1 then engages the rubber and again takes pitching signals from F2. Has F1 committed a balk?

Define "signals"

To trick the umps, they used to have F2 squat and give the signs by his posture. A double squat bounce, turn in or out of glove = key, a shrug, a shoulder turn, closed glove = curve, open = fast, tug the mask = .....

Mark, certainly not a balk.

As others have said, the tradition of enforcement of this rule (for FED and otherwise) has been to
1. recognize that the underlying rationale of the rule is to prevent a quick pitch, which would be an illegal pitch (and a balk with runners on); and
2. ignore infractions unless the opposition complains, in which case instruct the pitcher ("don't do that") and, if absolutely necessary, eject for failing to follow instructions (though I can't imagine myself ever actually ejecting for this).

My beleif (and no, I don't have anything to support this), is that the rule, at least in FED, is to help the runners know when F1 is on (or off) the rubber. So. If F1 is straddling the rubber, bent over, peering in at F2 and F2 is in a crouch and holding down fingers between his legs -- it's a balk (by rule). If f1 is straddling the rubber, but standing up,. and F2 is out in front flashing the defense for the R1-R3 play, then it's not a balk.

Have to disagree here, Bob. The infractions penalized for a balk are listed in 6-2-4, and taking signals off the rubber is not listed there.

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.

I don't see how you can justify calling a balk for this, even under FED.

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.

Has anybody here ever called a balk for this in a FED game?

I thought so.........;)

Sigh! Here, Mark, I'll do a cut and paste for you.......
I have no more time for this!

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.

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,
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.

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?

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?

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.

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,
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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I tend to lean toward the "pitching regs start when he toes the rubber" stance. I've basically got a "don't do that" when signs are given off the rubber, if the need arises..

My main reason for posting, though, is that everyone seems to be highlighting "shall" and that emphasis goes against their argument. In my 9 to 5, I have to comply with ISO standards. ISO has a "list" of "shalls." These are things that will be done, bar none. Any deviation from the "shall" is equal to it not being done. The argument that the rule states "shall be taken from the rubber" implies (in my constantly audited to certain standards mind set) that it "shall not" be done otherwise. Basically, "shall" says it's going to be done this way - any other way is not permitted. And that's the way the auditors judge your compliance. I apply this to our rule sitch the same way. What I mean is that the simple use of the word shall is a statement prohibiting anything other than what follows it.

Sorry, too many audits, too many findings based on verbiage in the standards.

Has anyone defined what exactly what a signal is?

(answer: you can't, so all this is just a waste)

I would be more concerned about a possible pick off.

Nope and they won't. To admit to such a simple concept is to admit to deep rooted, long indulged, nonsensical officiating. The Old Guard would rather argue for eons amongst themselves about the ridiculoous than take one, tiny nonegotistical step back and say "Wow, good point, who does define a signal?"

Answer, no one does.

When a coch comes out onyou about this st00pid rule to claim that F1 is in violation by taking "signs" on the rubber, just ask Coach the same thing we have been saying. "what exactly is a signal". He can't answer, why should we?

Nothing mysterious, Garth. I've made this statement over and over here and on other boards.

• I do not care about the signs.
• I do not know when the signs are given to the pitcher. The catcher could be flexing his fingers for all I know! Maybe he is signaling the pitcher for a date! What the hell do I care! :rolleyes:
• I only care about the quick pitch.

I know that you understand what I am saying here. :D

I was with a company that was on ISO standards as well. Let me equate it to this sitch, so that you properly understand the baseball argument here.

If your ISO standards said, "Before placing an order with a supplier, Form 123 shall be filled out properly and signed by the Associate Manager." Now, say your company, before placing an order with a supplier, routinely runs possible orders by the Associate Manager via email, gets his ok, and then fills out the proper paperwork and places the order with the supplier. Has this company broken the ISO "shall"? No, of course not. Same thing in the baseball situation. the pitcher fulfilled his "Shall"... what he did before that is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=mbyron]Have to disagree here, Bob.


2 separate and distinct sentences

Therefore, if F1 is taking "pitching" signs from F2 while his pivot foot is NOT in contact with the Rubber, then it is an illegal act on the part of F1 otherwise why have the rule to begin with.

It is not a "do not do that" rule, however, most umpires will tell F2 to simply "knock it off" but if they continue to do it, then there is a penalty.

Simple example: F1 is straddling the rubber and looking in at F2 where F2 is giving pitching signals ie; to make it simple 1 finger for a fast ball and 2 for a curve ball.

What are you going to call?

If you do nothing and the opposing coach requests time and says "Hey Blue F1 is taking "pitching" signs not in contact with the rubber. How come you are not calling anything.

As mentioned the first time you see this as a FED umpire you are probably going to do preventative umpiring and tell F2 to go talk to F1 or if you notice this as BU get one of the fielder's attention and tell him to instruct F1 to take signs while in contact with the rubber.

However, if F1 does not "heed your advice" the next time he violated the rule then you enforce.

In FED it is not a "Do not do that" rule.

This thread reminds me of the "shoulder turn" balk that FED had until 2 yrs ago or so. many umpires would not call the "shoulder turn" balk.

It's one thing if your HS umpire association as a whole is not going to enforce the rule and it is conveyed to the coaches at the HS meeting but it's quite another for each umpire on his/her own to decide.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]
Pete:

I think you are missing the point that Jim Thompson and I are making and that is the NFHS Rules do not prohibit the pitcher from taking signs from the catcher when not in contact with the pitcher's plate, it just states that the pitcher shall take his signals from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate. Requiring the pitcher to take signs or simulate taking signs from the catcher while in contact with the picther's plate is to prevent a quick pitch. If the picher takes signs while not in contact with the picther's plate is NOT a "stop doing that" because the rules do not prohibit the pitcher from doing it. If the pitcher engages the pitcher's plate and DOES NOT take or simulate taking signs from the cather, then the pitcher has indeed committed a balk.

It is a situation that requires the umpires to not go looking for a problem when no problem exists.

And when the offensive coach requests time to tell me that the pitcher was taking signs from the catcher while not in contact the pitcher's plate I will tell him that the pitcher has not done anything illegal.

MTD, Sr.

Why do we have this argument every 6 weeks or so? It's nuts.

The law says you must stop at a stop sign before proceeding.

It's not illegal to stop 10 feet before the stop sign, as long as you still stop AT the stop sign.

It's not illegal to take signs from behind the rubber, beside the rubber, or freaking third base, as long as you abide by the rule that says you have to take them (read: appear to take them) while on the rubber. EVERY clinic I've ever gone to has covered this. And most of you guys who claim this "nothing" act is illegal have been to plenty. I'm REALLY surprised this is even an issue ... yet it becomes one every couple of months.

I understand where Garth is coming from and agree with him. If I see a pitcher straddle the rubber and then lean in as if to take signs, I'm balking him for simulating a preliminary motion to pitch without being on the rubber.


Tim.

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.

Why indeed.

It's the first instance of the term "pitching signs" that I've heard of.

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Therefore, if F1 is taking "pitching" signs from F2 while his pivot foot is NOT in contact with the Rubber, then it is an illegal act on the part of F1 otherwise why have the rule to begin with.


While the others blubber and spout on like whales, now we can get to serious, useful discussion. Is there an interp which says, no rule does, that appearing to be taking signs = taking signs. Appears to be a judgment, ok, if an ump wants go go that route, more power to him.

Wait....a flash....:eek: ...what if the signs are coming from the bench? Or there are no signs at all? Or.........

:D

Once upon a time, in this very forum, in the not-so-distant past, there was a discussion in which it was argued quite successfully that when the rule book says "You shall" do something, it is intimating that to do otherwise is contrary to the rule.

"The pitcher shall" naturally infers that the converse of this act "shall not" be done. It means that if the pitcher is going to take a sign (which is not required, BTW), it must be done while on the rubber. It is not an option to take his signs off the rubber. That is just convoluted logic (no offense to your buddy DeNucci). Just because something isn't spelled out for you doesn't make it legal. That is why the rule is there, to prevent the pitcher from getting his sign and then stepping on and going right away, which may result in a quick pitch.

Here is the way the rule breaks down:

FED: The pitcher must take his sign from the "catcher" while on the pitcher's plate. PENALTY: ball/balk (6-1-1 Pen) Source: BRD

This actually really does mean, "The pitcher must not take his signs (if he receives any) from off the pitcher's plate." There is no need to write this down, as most intelligent human beings understand right from wrong without having to be shown every instance of it.

In OBR it is listed as a "don't do that" pitching infraction, and not subject in and of itself to a penalty. But if I see a pitcher peering in as if getting a sign while off the rubber, followed by a snap throw to first on a pickoff attempt, I'm with Garth...I'm balking this guy.

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'm sorry, but this backward logic is nonsense. Everyone here knows that part of the intent of this rule is to prevent quickpitching. In fact, this is the rule pointed to when you balk a quick pitch. By your backward logic above (and your explicit statements that taking a sign is not required, despite the fact that the rules say the pitcher shall do exactly that), if a sign is not required, then this rule does not, in fact, prevent quick pitching. The fact that it DOES illustrates why this logic is incorrect.

A rule that states that a player shall or must do something does not automatically mean that he must not or shall not do something else. The rules do not state that it is a balk is the pitcher takes signs from off the rubber - it simply states that he must, in fact, take signs from ON the rubber.

Wrong. My logic is flawless. This is not my opinion alone, it is shared by many. There is no requirement to take signs. Sometimes the catcher doesn't give signs at all. What, we are supposed to say, "wait a minute catch, you didn't give him any sign?" The rule is not there to make the catcher give signs to the pitcher, it is to prevent the pitcher from taking his sign off the rubber and quickly stepping on and pitching the ball.

It is quite evident that the rule means that if the pitcher takes any signs, it shall be from on the rubber. Any other way of looking at it is the flawed model. I got a very nice grade at the university in Logic, thank you much.

But by your logic, if F1 simply gets the ball from another fielder, steps up to the rubber and pitches, without taking any signs from ANYone, he's broken no rules. And we all know that is not correct.

No, we don't all know that. You know that. I know differently. As long as the pitcher does not pitch before the batter is reasonably set in the batter's box, he need not take any signs. The taking signs rule is there for in case he takes signs. Some pitchers I've seen have only one pitch. What the hell do they need signs for? There is no requirement that signs be actually given, just the manner in which they must be given..."shall be from the rubber." That naturally means "not from any other location."

We are going to have to agree to disagree. Use whatever method you want. Not one single manager or coach in 21 years of umpiring has ever questioned when I have instructed the pitcher to engage the rubber before taking signs.

I have never allowed pitchers to get their signs off the rubber and then quickly step on and pitch, and this is the only reason for taking the signs off the rubber. They try to hold the runners close by doing it this way and it is just plain wrong.

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.

It's plain wrong. I agree. But if this pitcher has only 1 pitch, as you say, you'll allow them to hold runners this way? That's inconsistent ... and just plain wrong.

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.

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.

You may have aced Logic, but you are doing poorly in Semantics.

1st snippet:
"shall be from the rubber"... Quote marks usually indicate a quote. I hope we can agree that what you "quoted" is not, in fact, a quote of any Rule [at least none relevent to this thread]. What the Rule ACTUALLY says [Fed: 6-1-1] "[the pitcher] shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate. " [OBR: 8.01] "Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber."

NEITHER of those versions of the Rule says or logically implies that F1:
# Needs to take any "sign" at all...
# May ONLY take signs from the catcher...
# May ONLY take signs from the rubber....

The usual and customary interpretation has been, time out of mind, that TO PREVENT A QUICK PITCH, F1 must take, or simulate taking, a sign from F2 after coming into contact with the pitching rubber [or "plate"] and before pitching. To be clear:
*No actual sign need be given...
*F1 may take signs from F2, his coach, his daddy or g/f in the stands, or The Great Hairy Thunderer... and
* he can take those signs, if any, anywhere he damn pleases [one caveat - wait for it], as long as he takes or simulates taking a sign from F2 after contact w/ the rubber and before pitching.

The caveat is what Garth [and, I think I remember, Bob] is/are talking about: IN FED, straddling the rubber and looking in for a sign MAY be interpreted as motions associated with the pitch - a balk if performed/ simulated while not in contact with the rubber.

2d snippet:

"quickly step on and pitch, ... this is the only reason for taking the signs off the rubber." Not so, and this is demonstrated in the OP, where "signs" are taken OFF the rubber, then F1 steps on and takes [or appears to take] ANOTHER sign, in compliance with the Rule. There are MANY reasons why this is done, far too many to list; but one should suffice:

Scratching your nose on the rubber is a balk in FED ball [motion associated with pitch]: F1 gets balked for this ONE TIME, and if he's got a coach that insists on the catcher giving 311 "signs" before each pitch, he'll wait until the end of the meaningless chatter before he climbs into the position of peril.

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.

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.

cbfoulds:

Please cite sources for your time-honored interpretation, because I don't see it in print anywhere. I've searched JEA And MLBUM and there is no such interpretation. Is this just traditional, regional, folklore, what? Show me one shred of a document that says pitchers can take signs from the catcher while off the rubber. I'm not talking about signs from daddy in the stands. Also, I am the one saying that there is no requirement to take a sign at all. As long as the batter is not quick pitched, the pitcher need not take any signs.

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

I don't believe this thread was ever about signals, signs, messages from heaven, osmosis or interpretive non-verbal analysis by a pitcher.

It just wasn't.

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.

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.

SDS:

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

MTD, Sr.

jicecone:

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

MTD, Sr.

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?

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:cool:

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.

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.

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?"

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


Tim.

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.

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.

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.

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:cool:

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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".

Well, I stayed out of this until
 

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,

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.

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.

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

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.

Shucks. I guess we'uns ain't near as smart as them experts in Wisconsin.

Poor old backwards Spokane, we're the only area in which coaches teach runners to watch for when the pitcher is on the rubber. Stupidly, I guess, they figure when he's on the rubber he'll have to either step off or step towards the base, giving them time to get back. What they try to avoid is leaving the bag when the pitcher can just fling the ball over without any prepatory move.

I'll let them know that when they get picked off by a pitcher who is violating a rule...they had it coming.

Steve , I am well aware of the signal making the ball dead however, my response was to the post that said the batter was barely ready. I will make sure he is ready and verbally does not always do the trick from 60 ft away.

I agree one must use the signal discretionally however I AM, going to control the situation so as to prevent other problems.

I agree as well on both counts.

I have seen, on more than one occasion, pitchers leaning in, seemingly taking their sign while straddling the rubber. Whether intending to deceive or not, it certainly can be.
IF I were to balk this, I would not refer to the taking signs on the rubber rule, rather if asked, would refer to simulating a pitch while not on the rubber.
However, if I were doing my preventive umpiring thing I would not refer to simulating a pitch, instead I would tell F1 he can't take his sign from F2 from off the rubber.

You know what? I was right to give you a trial run on my ignore list. It's going permanent.

I'd like to see someone just fling the ball to the base from a bent-over straddle - no turn and/or step.

Maybe they are more flexible in Spoke-ann.

I'm surprised with your vast experience you haven't seen that move.

I've seen it with RH pitchers in contact and called it a balk several times in California, New York and, yep, in good ol' Spokane.

In fact, I called it in an MSBL game last Sunday.

Garth:

And I am sorry to have to tell you, but you were wrong in California, New York, Spokane, and last Sunday.

MTD, Sr.

I know you are convinced I'm an idiot, but...

Excuse me?

You allow, in FED, FI, IN CONTACT with the rubber, to throw to first without stepping off or stepping to the base?

I know your sympathies lie with the pitcher, but, c'mon.

FED 6-4-2

If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a pitcher while he is touching the pitching plate, is a balk:

(b) failing to step with the non-pivot footdirectly toward a base (occupied or unoccupied) when throwing or feinting there in an attempt to put out, or drive back a runner....

You may consider me wrong in three states. I'm convinced you're wrong in 48.

Wow.

Unless I am just misreading this whole last page here, are you really saying that a pitcher in contact with the plate is allowed to just fling the ball over to first without "no turn and/or step" and you consider this legal?