During a discussion about straddling the rubber and taking signs and obviously trying to deceive the runner, here is the statement from one fellow.

"it is legal to deceive the runner. That's the whole idea after all. You want to get the runner leaning the wrong way so you can pick him off. It's the runner's responsibility to read the move and not get picked off.
There are, however, limits as to what moves you can make in doing so. The one described is not on the list of illegal moves that cause a balk [which are in 8.05 plus the failure to come to a stop in 'set' in 8.01(b)], therefore it is not a balk."

My counter was:
" If you really get technical, since taking the signs off the rubber is in 8.01 Legal pitching delivery, to me if its done, it makes the pitch that follows an illegal pitch since it wasn't delivered illegally.
4.03 says he has to take his legal position while in the act of delivering, so if he doesn't that makes it an illegal pitch which is a balk.
8.05 says the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher form deliberately deceiving the runner and since 9.01(c) allows the umpire to make those kinds of interpretations and judgements, it seems that its up to him."

My argument isn't whether or not it is a balk as written in the rule, but that the umpire has the discretion to make a judgement and if he wants to, could call a balk.

For me as an umpire, it is a balk, no matter what. I agree with prentive officiating, but this is interpretation you can not be preventive about, you need to call a balk when you a pitcher not on the rubber and taking signs from the catcher.

You really have to read these rules closer and use some interpretation manuals along with your rule book.

9.01 only gives you the right to rule on any point not SPECIFICALLY covered in the rules.

8.01 begins with " Legal pitching delivery"
and the requirement for both of those legal pitching deliveries is that the "Pitchers take their signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber"

If this is not done, then the pitch is AN ILLEGAL PITCH. 2.00 defines "an illegal pitch when runners are on base as a BALK"

Get it, not legal is defined as illegal.

No, you do not have the discretion to call anything a balk that you feel like calling a balk. You have the discretion to call balks as listed in 8.05. There are no balks listed elswhere. They're all in 8.05. If it's not in 8.05, it's not a balk.

Certainly, balks are judgment calls. You could call anything a balk, not explain why, and no one could protest. But is that really smart?

Why the heck even have written rules if you're just going to make up your own anyway?

Good try, but no. The casebook comments under 8.05(e) clearly define an illegal pitch as a quick pitch.

Once again, the casebook comments under 8.01 tell us how to administer the rule. It explains that it may be a quick pitch if the pitcher takes his signs while off the rubber, and then quickly engages and delivers. That's the penalty for the rule - <b>it is not a balk</b>.

Hey, you guys are far ahead of the last time I debated this rule on the Internet. Then, some guys were arguing that the pitcher was required to take his signs from the catcher. At least you guys know that's not the case.

buckweat -


This issue of 'taking a sign off the rubber' is one of the many rules which have different applications for high school (Fed), college (NCAA-NAIA) and 'pro' ball. An excellent reason, I might add, for one to invest a few dollars and purchase Carl Childress' Baseball Rule Differences (BRD), the 20th edition, which was published earlier this year.

In high school ball (Fed) this is a 'balk.' In college ball (NCAA-NAIA) this is a 'ball,' unless all runners including the batter runner advance one base on any subsequent pitch, which therefore nullifies the penalty.
In 'pro' ball (OBR) there's no penalty listed, however this is a "don't do that" issue, which means you should advise the pitcher, and catcher too, not to take/give signs when the pitcher is off the rubber. Now if they fail to comply, you have the authority to eject them for unsportmanlike conduct.

I found it very easy to control this matter by speaking with the catcher and letting him know that he is not to give any signals to the pitcher until, and unless, he is on the rubber. Bingo, problem dissappears.

Other balks?
 

I'm not sure, but the following 2 rules are certainly not in 8.05 and it looks to me like they describe a balk.

4.03
When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.
(a) The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. PENALTY: Balk.

7.07
If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

buckweat -

Basically OBR rule 8.05 speaks about the specifics that a 'pitcher' does or does not do which results in a penalty of a balk. It does not address all balk penalties.

4.03 speaks to other members of the defensive team who's action can also be penalized as a balk.

7.07 speaks about what the penalty is for an illegal act by the catcher.

This is what I was taught in the 5 week pro school I attended some time ago. The correct mechanic was:

Time!!! Get on the rubber!!!!

BTW, another example of this concept is when the pitcher, in the set position, starts with his hands together. Again, just don't allow it to happen.

Re: Other balks?
 

Look again for 4.03(a). It is also listed among the balks under 8.05(l). (Although no umpire worth his salt would make that call)

7.07 is a rule at the heart of a major controversy. Depending on the pro school that you attended, you may have been instructed to scratch 7.07 from your book. Rule 7.04(d), as well as the casebook comments under 6.08(c) (both adopted to the code years after 7.07) effectively take the place of 7.07.

Well, now, here's an excellent example of rule versus application.

The OBR casebook comments under 8.01 instruct us to watch for a quick pitch or a delay in the game in relation to that rule. If the pitcher neither quick pitches nor delays the game, why on Earth would you warn or eject him for not taking his signs while on the rubber? In other words, if there's no problem, what's the problem?

Don't over-officiate. Yes, it's a, "Don't do that," under the OBR as stated in my editor and friend Carl Childress' book. (The book is WELL worth the price - - even if you only work one code - - since it contains rulings not found anywhere else)

I'm sure Papa C himself would tell you not to interrupt the flow of the game over that situation unless there's some problem. How do I know? We've talked about this subject endlessly over the last few years. It is a topic that comes up time and again. I'm the only one arguing my position because everyone else has grown tired of repeating the same things about these same rules over and over again.

I want to make it absolutely clear that the last thing I want to give anyone the impression of is that I'm criticizing officials. In fact, quite the contrary. The very good answers I've seen to this issue prove to me that this is not an officiating problem, but rather an administrative and bureaucratic one.

The answer I think is positively the best is, that it be controlled from the first occurrence and that will take care of it 99% of the time. However, there are things that one just has to accept given the current state of the rules that I find very difficult to accept.

I'm a big believer in definitions. I've looked in the OBR and although the work "unsportsmanlike" is used 4 times, there is nothing that defines it. that means its another one of those nebulous "judgement" things that get everyone in trouble.

I'm not talking about writing a dissertation that covers every conceivable kind of UC, but something very general like a lot of the other definitions. For instance. UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT is any conduct which could cause injury, denigrates any participant, violates established rules, causes damage to personal property, or by its nature is not in the spirit of fair play.

My guess is in umpire schools or casebooks, there is something like that, so why keep it a secret? As long as the decision remains with "blue" why not make it clear to everyone?

I'm also not a big believer in hearing the reasoning that some rule is just ignored because it doesn't apply anymore. That just evading the issue. If the rule no longer is a good one, get rid of it and then there won't have to be case book items on it and people who go to different umpire schools won't be getting taught different things.

The "straddling the rubber" issue is so silly at it base that I'm almost ashamed to be arguing about it. if a pitcher does it, it violates a rule. it is so similar in nature to the other reasons balks are called, why not just list it as a balk and be done with it? That way there's no controversy and it would probably be one of the easiest balks to understand.

By definition a balk_ "is an illegal act by a pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base."

Straddling the rubber and talking signs is an illegal act, just as a quick pitch is an illegal act. If a quick pitch occurs with no runners on base, the penalty is the pitch will be called a ball. Inadvertently dropping the ball with runners on is a balk and with nor runners on is a ball. Why make the penalty for a violation of something an ejection?

I guess without the benefit of studying umpiring and actually working games, I'm getting hung up on 8.05, "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner."

Since there are penalties for the same illegal acts whether there are runners on or not, why not just do the same with straddling the rubber and taking signs?

Oh well, I guess all I can say is thanks for the insight.

You brought up so many issues!

There are a number of necessary definitions that do not appear in the OBR. Feel free to add, "Time of Pitch," and, "Play Or Attempted Play," to that list. You need the PBUC Manual to find official definitions of those.

I might've given you the wrong impression about one thing. The casebook comments are incorporated into the rules of the OBR. They are not in some separate book. They're right there in the rules themselves.

We do not have the power just to, "get rid of," archaic rules. We do not own the Official Baseball Rules. Major League Baseball owns it. We're just borrowing it. It's not evading the issue to ignore archaic rules - it's correct and proper.

Yes, straddling the rubber and taking signs is, indeed, illegal. But it is illegal for a reason. That reason speaks to spirit and intent. That's why umpires must make judgments, and they use the spirit and intent of the rules to make those judgments. Advantage/disadvantage, no harm/no foul - that's what officiating is all about. So, if the rule exists to keep pitchers from quick-pitching, it really shouldn't be enforced unless the pitcher quick-pitches, you see?

Yes, by definition a balk, "is an illegal act by a pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base," and, "straddling the rubber and taking signs is an illegal act,". However, straddling the rubber and taking signs is not an illegal act that entitles all runners to advance one base, you see? Only a balk is that, and balks are listed quite effectively under 8.05.

You must understand the audience for the above quote to understand its meaning. It was written for professional umpires in professional baseball where pitchers pushed the envelope of the balk rule year after year. At one time, the rules committee sought to end freak deliveries. It has been quite some time since a, "new," balk requiring the umpire to consider that text has occurred. You will not see a balk occur that is not already listed under 8.05.

Finally, you said, ". . .there are penalties for the same illegal acts whether there are runners on or not . . ." If I understand your meaning, it is not true. Only illegal acts listed under 8.05 are balks. Violations listed under 8.01 and 8.02, if not also listed under 8.05, would not be balks. They have their own distinct penalties whether there are runners on or not.

For example, going to the mouth on the circle, applying expectorate or some other foreign material to the ball, defacing the ball, etc. would not be balks with runners on base. They have their own penalty - a ball called and a warning issued. While these are illegal acts, they are not illegal acts entitling all runners to advance one base.

Yes, by definition a balk, "is an illegal act by a pitcher with a runner or runners o
 

I didn't understand why straddling the rubber was not a balk until I read the above statement. It perfectly describes an invalid conclusion that cannot be proven by the mathematical laws of syllogism or detachment. I know I am about to be ridiculed by the following explanation, but I'll do it anyway.

According to the consensus of this board:
1) A balk is an illegal act.
2) Straddling the rubber is an illegal act.
3) Straddling the rubber is a balk.

Not true!

Look at it this way, but instead of balk, use "bear", instead of straddling the rubber, use "swan", & instead of illegal act, use "animal":
1) A bear is an animal.
2) A swan is an animal.
3) A swan is a bear.

You see?