FED Going to Mouth
 

In the "Preseason Guide" for baseball it is clearly stated "With a runner or runners on base, a pitcher who has engaged the pitcher's plate and goes to his mouth has committed a balk."

Case book 6.2.1 Situation B clearly indicates a pitcher has balked if while touching the pitcher's plate in the set position with runners on base he places his hand on his mouth and distinctly wipes off his pitching hand prior to touching the ball.

This year the rule book has as a "Point of Emphasis" going to the mouth and clearly says "going to the mouth while in contact with the pitcher's plate is a balk, not because the pitcher goes to his mouth, but because the action simulates the start of the pitching motion."

I've got the above ammunition to back up my calling of a balk in the above situations. Where is the justification in the rules book though? The newly "clarified" shaded text in the Penalty of 6-2-1e doesn't support a balk. I suspect your answer will be that the "simulates the start if the pitching motion" interpretation along with "continue the motion without interruption..." and "go to the set positon without interruption..." blah blah are all the reasons I need but I am not satisfied. Going to the mouth doesn't look like the start of the pitching motion to me. Is it sufficient for something to be clearly stated in the case book but not in the rules book to justify a call?

Yes.

From the Case Book (Foreword p.2)

Interpretations: Rulings in this book are approved by the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee. They are official for situations as outlined.

I've got the above ammunition to back up my calling of a balk

I wouldn't be too jacked up about calling that play a balk just because it's in the rules...but as you said, you now have a "point of emphasis" to back you in enforcing that rule...

You are correct and I agree...that "going to the mouth" is not the reason it's a balk...but can simulate the beginning of the pitching motion...so I would use that as your test for a calling the balk or warning F1...

I've heard other sides too that say...if you're going to warn, now you have to warn everybody, otherwise, you have now subjected yourself to a protestable situation if you warn one team and balk the other...

food for thought.

And,
 

I would also like to comment that the rules interpretations posted on the NFHS website and the overhead presentation are also considered "official interpretations" by the National Federation of State High Schools.

Regards,

Tim Christensen
NFHS publication Committee

"High School Today"

Lapopez, let me reword your situation a bit:

F1, while touching the pitcher's plate in the set position with runners on base <s>he places his hand on his mouth and distinctly wipes off his pitching hand prior to touching the ball.</s> separates his hands to adjust his cap.

Is this a balk and why?

separating your hands simulates the start of the pitching motion...

my answer, yes, balk. Unless the cap adjustment is very early on and considered preliminary movement

So what you are asking is that the pitcher is not only pitching from the set position, he has already come to a stop with both hands together, and then separates his hands to adjust his cap. The fact that he has already come to a stop is the key point and my original question did not assume this. Even if the pitcher hadn't come to a stop, as I understand it, the key point is if the pitcher touches his mouth while engaged with the rubber, even before the stop, it is a balk with runners on base. To answer your question, any separation after the stop for anything other than a pitch or pick off I would call a balk since the motion would indicate either of those two things.

The FED online clinic makes it clear that FED considers going to the mouth while in contact with the rubber is a balk for going to the mouth while in contact with the rubber, not for simulating a pitching motion.

I don't know why wording wasn't added or clarified in 6-2-4 to reflect this.

Among the POE in the rulebook, the Casebook and the online clinic, we appear to have three different wordings regarding this rule. Since we need to pass a quiz on the online clinc with a score of 100% to be "Certified", we have gone with the clinc interpretation.

While FED has had its share of rulebook issues, they do have an advantage over OBR. In FED we have access to a process to fix the mistakes. The OBR has had over 200 mistakes for years.

I'm having dinner with the Washington chief FED rules interpreter this evening. I'm typing up my proposal for next year to take with me.

Yes, exactly what I'm saying. The pitcher is in the set position when he brings his hands together and makes a discernible stop. Ref: 6-1-3

FED 6-1-3 For the set position, the pitcher shall have the ball in either his gloved hand of his pitching hand. His pitching hand shall be down at his side or behind his back. Before starting his delivery, he shall stand with his entire non-pivot foot in front of a line extending through the front edge of the pitcher's plate and with his entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate. He shall go the the set position without interruption and in one continuous motion. He shall come to a complete and discernible stop (a change of direction is not considered an acceptable stop) with the ball in both hands in front of the body and his glove at or below his chin. ...

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.

If the pitcher is in the set position, as defined in my earlier post, and separates his hands it's a balk. It doesn't matter if he goes to his mouth, adjusts his cap or scratches his arse. The act of separating his hands preceeds all other actions and that is the balk, not what follows.

That has never been in dispute or any point of confusion in this whole thread.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by waltjp
If the pitcher is in the set position, as defined in my earlier post, and separates his hands it's a balk. It doesn't matter if he goes to his mouth, adjusts his cap or scratches his arse. The act of separating his hands preceeds all other actions and that is the balk, not what follows.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Ole walt's like that. :p

Correct the RB doesn't handle this very well. Blame the OBRs, it starts there, it's a rag.

If you start baling pitchers pre-set for every little movement, you had best get ready to balk them when they roll their finger asking for a new or repeat set of F2 signs.

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

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.

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.

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

Hmm,
 

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"

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

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.

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.

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

Thanks. I can accept that.

~Sigh~
 

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,

Please and thank you. I would greatly appreciate that.

Newsletter, eh?

Ok,
 

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.

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."

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.

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.

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

I already acknowledged just about everything you just said. "AND he's willing to share what he knows in this forum." I don't care for his condescending approach to this, therefore, I am not interested in learning anything from him in particular.