FED Going to Mouth

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

By rule, these are all balks. How strictly it's called will vary from area to area..

Bob, would you please reference the rule of which your interpretation deems those actions, made prior to the pitcher coming to his discernible stop, to be balks.

[mbyron]

I'm not Bob, but how about this. You need 6-1-3, "He shall go to the set position without interruption and in one continuous motion. . . . Natural premilinary motions such as only one stretch may be made."

You're concerned with the time before F1 comes set, so his hands should still be separated. F1 is allowed one motion to come set. Going to the mouth does not constitute the allowed stretch or any "natural preliminary motion," so he's starting and stopping.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not Bob, but how about this. You need 6-1-3, "He shall go to the set position without interruption and in one continuous motion. . . . Natural premilinary motions such as only one stretch may be made."

You're concerned with the time before F1 comes set, so his hands should still be separated. F1 is allowed one motion to come set. Going to the mouth does not constitute the allowed stretch or any "natural preliminary motion," so he's starting and stopping.

I’m sorry to keep beating this but I honestly do not agree. You’ve quoted a “what to do” part of the rule. I’m going to argue that you haven’t given the pitcher the chance to go to the set position without interruption and in one continuous motion. He still may do just that. You skipped over, “He shall come to a complete and discernible stop…” which comes before the “Natural preliminary motions…” quote. I’m still concerned with the actions before the discernible stop and I don’t feel that statement has gone into effect yet. The “what not to do” part of the rule is covered in 6-2-4d. The point of this whole thread for me is that I would prefer the going-to-the-mouth-balk be expressed in this part of the rule because all those movements I mentioned a few posts back, in my opinion, do not constitute “a movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery.” Again, since the case book says it’s a balk, and, for at least this year, it’s a POE and clearly stated there, I’ll call it--to the mouth only though.

[David B]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

I’m sorry to keep beating this but I honestly do not agree. You’ve quoted a “what to do” part of the rule. I’m going to argue that you haven’t given the pitcher the chance to go to the set position without interruption and in one continuous motion. He still may do just that. You skipped over, “He shall come to a complete and discernible stop…” which comes before the “Natural preliminary motions…” quote. I’m still concerned with the actions before the discernible stop and I don’t feel that statement has gone into effect yet. The “what not to do” part of the rule is covered in 6-2-4d. The point of this whole thread for me is that I would prefer the going-to-the-mouth-balk be expressed in this part of the rule because all those movements I mentioned a few posts back, in my opinion, do not constitute “a movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery.” Again, since the case book says it’s a balk, and, for at least this year, it’s a POE and clearly stated there, I’ll call it--to the mouth only though.

sounds like to me you are confusing FED with OBR rules.

FED has made it very clear that the pitcher must be off the rubber to do all of the above as you mentioned several posts ago.

I don't have my case book but I'm sure there is a case play to cover this.

I'm sure someone will post it before I am able to check tonight, but if not, then I will find the exact situation for you.

Thanks
David

[Tim C]

Lapopez:

I have no idea how to convince you of anything. Several people have consistently tried to show you the light yet you can't seem to be able to accept the points.

We have four things that can happen:

1) A pitcher can go to his mouth anywhere during a high school baseball game except when he is in contact with the pitcher's plate. As long as he wipes he has violated no rule.

2) With no one on base and the pitcher goes to his mouth it is always determined to be an illegal pitch and the penalty of awarding a ball to the batter is what is done.

3) With runners on base and the pitcher in contact with the pitcher's plate any time that pitcher goes to his mouth it is a balk. The NFHS documentation says it is "for a motion that is associated with the start of a pitch." This does not matter if the pitcher is in the wind-up or set position. (It should also be noted here that the spring newsletter of 1994 (?) also noted that any movement by a pitcher -- eg: adjusting his cap, wiping his face, or shaking off the pitcher with his glove is also illegal and penalized by the call of balk.)

4) A pitcher that goes to his mouth while NOT in contact with the pitcher's plate and then goes directly to the pitcher's plate without wiping has violated a different rule (defacing the ball) and is either warned or an umpire (using his judgement) can simply call "TIME" ask for the ball and warn the offender.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

National Federation of State High Schools
Publication Committee

"High School Today"

[PeteBooth]

Read Case plays 6.2.1(A) and 6.2.1 (B)

Then read TEES Response, it's practically verbatim to what the case plays illustrates.

Pete Booth

[fitump56]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

By rule, these are all balks. How strictly it's called will vary from area to area..

Now we have a voice of reason,Mr, Moderator, My Hero -suckup, suckup- is spot on,Laddiesor Lapolez w/e the OP's name.

Of ourse, this isn't what the Old Gurad or the "by the rulz only" uys want to hear. It's too close too reality and reality means flexiblity and that means you hae to b ready to defend your flexibility.

Interesting, eh? You better, you better, you bet (sorry Pete) but here again is the cutting line between rote officiating and good officiatiing.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Lapopez:

I have no idea how to convince you of anything. Several people have consistently tried to show you the light yet you can't seem to be able to accept the points.

We have four things that can happen:

1) A pitcher can go to his mouth anywhere during a high school baseball game except when he is in contact with the pitcher's plate. As long as he wipes he has violated no rule.

2) With no one on base and the pitcher goes to his mouth it is always determined to be an illegal pitch and the penalty of awarding a ball to the batter is what is done.

3) With runners on base and the pitcher in contact with the pitcher's plate any time that pitcher goes to his mouth it is a balk. The NFHS documentation says it is "for a motion that is associated with the start of a pitch." This does not matter if the pitcher is in the wind-up or set position. (It should also be noted here that the spring newsletter of 1994 (?) also noted that any movement by a pitcher -- eg: adjusting his cap, wiping his face, or shaking off the pitcher with his glove is also illegal and penalized by the call of balk.)

4) A pitcher that goes to his mouth while NOT in contact with the pitcher's plate and then goes directly to the pitcher's plate without wiping has violated a different rule (defacing the ball) and is either warned or an umpire (using his judgement) can simply call "TIME" ask for the ball and warn the offender.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

National Federation of State High Schools
Publication Committee

"High School Today"

If you had read my last post and prior posts you would have seen I was well beyond the going to the mouth issue and that's all you reference here. I was beyond it after your first post in this thread. I was very clear and specific in my question to Bob Jenkins. It had nothing to do with what you wrote above. Each one of those 4 points was about going to the mouth. If the only answer is in the case book, fine. I totally get Pete's case book situations.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

If you had read my last post and prior posts you would have seen I was well beyond the going to the mouth issue and that's all you reference here. I was beyond it after your first post in this thread. I was very clear and specific in my question to Bob Jenkins. It had nothing to do with what you wrote above. Each one of those 4 points was about going to the mouth. If the only answer is in the case book, fine. I totally get Pete's case book situations.

I'm more-than-a-little confused. You want to know why it's in the case book, but not in the rules book? Because if it was in the rules book, the book would be too thick. The rules book gives the rule (motion associated with pitch, one continuous motion to the set), while the case book gives examples of what it meant (going to the mouth, adjusting the cap, etc.). Sometimes, interpretation is needed.

[PeteBooth]

If I "catch your drift" you are saying that if a FED umpire enforces the new rule then in effect he is not a good official.

What about the FPSR. Suppose an umpire feels that enforcing this rule is also not good officiating. After all a runner ala the PROS should be able to break up a DP.

We do not make up the rules.

Here is another POI (Point of Emphasis) that our association wants us to STRICTLY enforce. According to the POI FED does not want coaches even though they are in DBT sitting on buckets. The intent is too keep the coaches inside the dugout.


Problem many fields I umpire on do not have duggouts. They have benches so the coaches got used to sitting on buckets.

I could give a rats you know what where they sit as long as they are in DBT and are not in an area where they could steal the opposing teams signs, however, my association wants us to strictly enforce.

Also, I hate checking equipment. IMO, that should be the coaches job and if the particpants violate a rule ie: step in the box with an illegal bat then we simply enforce the penalty

BUT

according to the FED rule book and also because of insurance reasons we check the equipment.

Therefore, I am not in agreement with your statement. It doesn't say hey guys pick and choose which rules you like and enforce them. The ones that you do not like simply ignore.

Now I am all for preventative umpiring but there comes a point where the rule needs to be enforced.

Pete Booth

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

I'm more-than-a-little confused. You want to know why it's in the case book, but not in the rules book? Because if it was in the rules book, the book would be too thick. The rules book gives the rule (motion associated with pitch, one continuous motion to the set), while the case book gives examples of what it meant (going to the mouth, adjusting the cap, etc.). Sometimes, interpretation is needed.

Thanks. I can accept that.

[Tim C]

Hey Smitty:

"If you had read my last post and prior posts you would have seen I was well beyond the going to the mouth issue and that's all you reference here. I was beyond it after your first post in this thread. I was very clear and specific in my question to Bob Jenkins. It had nothing to do with what you wrote above. Each one of those 4 points was about going to the mouth. If the only answer is in the case book, fine. I totally get Pete's case book situations."

I also was trying to cover your vague questions concerning other illegal activities such as adjusting a cap, etc. (See point #3)

But you would rather argue.

I will give any of your further posts the proper consideration.

~Sigh~ yet another name on the "ignore list" - -

Regards,

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Tim C

~Sigh~ yet another name on the "ignore list" - -

Regards,

Please and thank you. I would greatly appreciate that.

Newsletter, eh?

[Tim C]

In the spirt of teamwork:

Since the mid 1970's the NFHS has distributed a spring newsletter that was used to give the interpretations of rules before the World Wide Web. The newletter is an official publication of the NFHS.

Brad Rumble, editor and NFHS liasion for baseball, wrote the newsletter and made several critical rulings that have influenced rules.

Some of these have eventually made it to the rule or case book. Some of them never have made the rule and case book as the NFHS does not want the book to become cumbersome.

All else aside, the rulings (ex: a relief pitcher throwing from the set position with no one on base must still make a full stop or the "start/stop" wind-up as seen in all other codes are considered illegal pitches in NFHS rules) are official and carry over if they appear in the rule book or not.

I recognize clearly that you are a "show me the rule" type guy. Evans talks extensively about "tradition and common sense" and how that changes the rules over years. Since your inexperience in NFHS documentation (i.e. the Newsetters) shows clearly I am just surprised that you don't accept the help that has been offered by several "authoritive opinions" of FED rules.

I am sorry that you are a skeptic but most of us that have extensive experience in NFHS rules usage recognize that not everything is clearly written in the rule and case books.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

Publication Committe Member
National Federation of State High Schools

"High School Today"

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Tim C

In the spirt of teamwork:

Since the mid 1970's the NFHS has distributed a spring newsletter that was used to give the interpretations of rules before the World Wide Web. The newletter is an official publication of the NFHS.

Brad Rumble, editor and NFHS liasion for baseball, wrote the newsletter and made several critical rulings that have influenced rules.

Some of these have eventually made it to the rule or case book. Some of them never have made the rule and case book as the NFHS does not want the book to become cumbersome.

All else aside, the rulings (ex: a relief pitcher throwing from the set position with no one on base must still make a full stop or the "start/stop" wind-up as seen in all other codes are considered illegal pitches in NFHS rules) are official and carry over if they appear in the rule book or not.

I recognize clearly that you are a "show me the rule" type guy. Evans talks extensively about "tradition and common sense" and how that changes the rules over years. Since your inexperience in NFHS documentation (i.e. the Newsetters) shows clearly I am just surprised that you don't accept the help that has been offered by several "authoritive opinions" of FED rules.

I am sorry that you are a skeptic but most of us that have extensive experience in NFHS rules usage recognize that not everything is clearly written in the rule and case books.

Regards,

Tim Christensen

Publication Committe Member
National Federation of State High Schools

"High School Today"

That was actually a really nice post. I can accept all of it and I'm glad to have that knowledge now. If it were made earlier on, that is before your prior one, I probably wouldn't feel as I do now: I just assume you keep me on your 'ignore list'. I don't like you and I am not interested in your opinions. Respond if you wish to my future queries, however, I couldn't care less about your opinions in particular.