FED Going to Mouth

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

For what you are saying, I think the rule book already clearly covers in 6-2-4e. I don't know what you are trying to emphasize in 6-1-3 quote above. Prior to bringing the hands together and making a discernible stop, are you going to balk a pitcher for raising his hand and adjusting his cap, scratching his cheek, swatting a bug away? I say no. I don't think it violates 6-2-4d. But if he goes to his mouth, it's a balk. That's not clear in the rule book to me. It is in the case plays so I'll call it, but I'd prefer it to be clear in the rules as well.

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

[David B]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

Exactly, a good pitcher has to learn that to do anything legally, just disengage the rubber.

Why take a chance that you might get away with it one game, and then have it called a week later in a different area, game etc.,

Thansk
David

[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.

[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"

[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.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

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.

Take this FWIW, but that's acting very troll-like and being very shortsighted. It could be interpreted as, "I have my opinion and I don't care to learn."

[mbyron]

Actually, I read it as "I don't like this guy's style and tone, so I'm going to ignore his posts, whether those could teach me something or not."

Lapopez, regardless of how you feel about Tee's prickly online persona, he knows his stuff and deserves your attention.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Take this FWIW, but that's acting very troll-like and being very shortsighted. It could be interpreted as, "I have my opinion and I don't care to learn."

Not at all. I don't care for Tim. I acknowledge his knowledge. My opinions would probably be wrong versus his. I fully realize and willingly sacrifice the times I may get some knowledge from him to never have to read a response from him to a question I may have again. I do not care to learn from him. You were helpful in a helpful way. He is a condescending person and I am not interested in his help. That opinion has been formed from his responses to me and others in the past, not just this thread. He suggested putting me on his "ignore" list. That's what I want.

[UmpJM]

Lapopez,

As in all things, do as you think best.

However, are you familiar with the phrases "Cutting off your nose to spite your face" or "Throwing the baby out with the bath water"?

When I first started reading this board a number of years back and came across some of Tee's posts, my first reaction was, "Man, what an arrogant Pri*k!". As I read some more, that changed to, "Man, that arrogant pri*k sure seems to know a lot more about umpiring than I do, AND he's willing to share what he knows in this forum. I think I can put up with the arrogance if it'll help me become a better umpire."

Subsequently, I had the opportunity to watch Tee work a game (PU for a HS Varsity contest) and have some dinner and conversation afterwards. After watching him work, my opinion that he knows a lot more than me about umpiring was reinforced, and I found him not to be a pri*k at all in person.

I am of the opinion that a good umpire needs to have a "thick skin". Your post leads me to believe that Tee "hurt your feelings" so you've decided not to avail yourself of what you could learn from his knowledge and experience. Maybe umpiring isn't something you should do.

But, as I said, make your own decision and do as you think best.

JM