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?

Two Bits must be a teacher! I am not sure what the "mathematical laws of syllogism or detachment" are, however, I do know a bear is not a swan. Thus, in my ever knuckle-dragging state, I must conclude that a straddling the rubber is not a balk.

--
jumpmaster al

Straddling rubber to take signs
 

Most of the time pitchers take their signs while off the rubber at lower levels of ball. For the most part this seems to be done out of ignorance rather than an attempt to deceive the runner(s). Usually I'll see this more as BU than PU. I'll usually mention it to the offending coach and simply suggest that his catcher not give "signs" until the pitcher is on the rubber. This usually works for me. Jim/NYC

I call that balk, but.....
 

I generally do not call it without first having whispered to the catcher to call time out and go out and tell the pitcher that he cannot do that.

Straddling AND taking signs IS a balk.

I had a catcher tell me that he was "scratching" and not giving a sign. Too bad, bonehead. If you made it appear close enough to giving a sign that I called it - it was violating the spirit of the rule to such an extent that calling it was required.

Think about it this way.......you don't call it and the runner is picked off - the coach sees the sign taken while straddling. What reason do you give for NOT calling the balk?

The rule is there for a reason. Call it.

Since pitchers are sometimes unaware of the rule - or they have had prior umpires ignore the violation, I give the "secret, friendly, warning to the catcher. That usually makes the violation go away.

Straddling the rubber and taking signs:

OBR- warn, then eject if he persists
FED- balk every time

Re: I call that balk, but.....
 

Although the rule states that a pitcher "shall" take his signs from the catcher while on the rubber, there is no specified penalty if he takes his signs while straddling the rubber unless he steps quickly to the rubber and delivers the pitch.


The spirit of the rule is to prevent the pitcher from quick pitching to the batter.

Unless the pitcher has made a move naturally associated with his delivery while off the rubber, he can pick off the runner as an infielder. If I were to be questioned as to why this was not a balk, my answer would be that he's not violated the rule until he quick pitches


I agree that a little preventitive umpiring is appropriate here. Simply call time and dust off the plate while you let F2 know what's on your mind.


Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Dec 15th, 2005 at 06:01 PM]

Hehehe,
 

I have never met an umpire that has called a balk for a pitcher taking his sign while not in contact with the pitcher's plate.

Not one . . . never, ever.

So please define "taking a sign" for me.

With r1 and r3 and the catcher goes out in front of home plate and gives "signs" for the defensive actions if r1 steals . . . so that is "giving signs." Would you that are OOO require F1 to be in contact with the pitcher's plate while taking this "sign?"

And if you wouldn't, please direct me to a rule or written interpretation that defines what "type sign" can and cannot be given.

Sheese, work on your safes/outs, ball/strikes and fair/fouls.

Watch for a quick return pitch and enjoy the game.

Tee

largeone59,

Can you tell me what interpretation you are citing for warning and ejecting under OBR? Is it from a manual, or are you just using Rule 9.01 (b,c,and d?) I have never had the pitcher disobey my order to take his signs on the rubber, but I would like to know the correct ruling. Thanks.

Steve

Steve,

There is no penalty under OBR for taking signs without being on the rubber. However, J/R suggests to call time and have the pitcher correct himself or talk to his coach about it for the first time. The second time give a warning and the third would be an ejection.

Thanks,

As I said, it has never gotten to the point of ejection, so I really had no clue as to how to deal with it.

You forgot the first steps:

1) Ignore it.
2) If the coach complains, ignore him.
3) If the coach complians again, tell him in a loud voice (so F1 and F2 can hear) that you'll watch more carefully.
3a) Look for some equally picky violation by the complainant or his team
4) If you think F1 is about to break the rule, call time and dust the plate.
5) If you think F1 is about to break the rule, call time and ask F2 to go talk to F1.

Bingo, Bango, Bongo! Bob nails it again!

yeah, what bob said. i was just giving the quick answer before i left.

as a matter of fact, i had a coach complain about this during summer league (OBR). he was a big cry baby. i pretty much did exactly what bob said to do. his team was getting raped by a terrible team, so he was nit picking for stuff to get an edge in a rat-like manner.


P.S. steve- i got the interpretation from the Jim Evans Balk Video.

Re: Yes, by definition a balk,
 

clearly you didn't take quite enough philosophy in college. Reconstructed to reflect the truth, the argument would go like this:

1)A balk is any act with runners on base that falls under rule 8.05 (8.05)
2)A pitch is illegal if it is delivered after signs are taken off of the rubber (8.01)
3)An illegal pitch falls under rule 8.05 (8.05)
Therefore, A pitch that is delivered after signs are taken off of the rubber is a balk, provided there are runners on base.

Re: Re: Yes, by definition a balk,
 

Nice. But "Illegal Pitch" is a defined term in OBR -- it *only* means a quick pitch or a pitch while not in contact with the rubber. Any other act, even if it is illegal and is a pitch, is not an "Illegal Pitch."

yes my favorite ...
 

Works every time.

Thanks
David

But it isn't as nit-picky
 

As some have said - in my humble opinion. There really is a dis-advantage to the runner in straddling the rubber and taking signs. Notice I said dis-advantage and not deception. I think it is a balk - most pitchers from high school and higher do it to add some deception - it is not accidental - they've been coached to do it. As long as they don't look in for a sign while doing it I think we are at a fair balance. If the runner is picked off before the pitcher looks in - hey - he's fair game - he should have known better. Once the pitcher looks in and takes a sign - the runner is getting his full lead based on that. Most base coaches are telling the runner when the pitcher is on or off the rubber. That lets the runner know when to get his full lead.

Bottom line - I'll warn, then call balk.

Hmmm,
 

"Bottom line - I'll warn, then call balk."

Please remind your assigner to not schedule us together.

I already know enough OOOs.

Tee

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Balk? Please give rule reference for your
right to call it a balk,as I cannot seem to
find it.

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Buy a rule book. Save some thinking. Apparently it hurts your head.

You've been told reality by a number of posters. This reminds me of a Dorothy Parker-ism: "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Disadvantage to the runner ??

Let's see, so anything that as an umpire I see creates a disadvantage for the runner I need to "make up" a rule to make that fair?

Not only does that make no sense, but to play your game, how in the world is this an advantage for the pitcher?

Or maybe you're playing a different game or something ...

Umpires need to umpire, nothing else.

Thanks
David

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Is it just me, or is this contradictory? And
what does when the runner gets his lead have to
do with calling a balk?

I don't think it's contradictory. Runners will not take up their full lead until the pitcher engages the rubber because they know the pitcher has more options available to him in his pick off attempt.

The point he's missing is that the runner bears the burden of knowing when the pitcher actually engages the rubber if the pitcher attempts a pick off. There's no way to balk the pitcher for being off the rubber unless he:

A: Steps quickly to the rubber and delivers the pitch.

B: Stands astride the rubber without the ball.

c: Makes a motion naturally associated with the pitch before he's engaged the rubber.

The point is that until he quick pitches, he's not committed an infraction.

Tim.

i'm impressed jenkins...i did not realize that that was the definition. Thanks

alex

I come back after a self-imposed 2 week hiatus and find the board is back to discussing actual issues. Fantastic.

This one is pretty cut and dried, however, and I'm surprised at the 2 or 3 hold outs that continue to insist that they will balk this when the rules clearly separate this action from those listed as a balk.

Don't you folks think that if the rulemakers intended this to be a balk, it would be INCLUDED in 8.05? It's not. It's not ON PURPOSE. Because it's NOT A BALK. It's not even illegal unless the pitcher subsequently creates an ILLEGAL disadvantage by then quick-pitching. VERY simple. Stop guessing and read the book.

And while all of this is true, the FED insists that it IS a balk, by lumping every violation of 6-1-1 into a single penalty of either ball or balk, depending on whether or not there are runners on base.

I have never enforced this technicality, nor do I think I ever would. Like it has been said already, just tell the pitcher to get on the rubber when taking his signs. I'm not about to stand out there all day calling ticky-tack, technical balks anyway.

IMO, this is another example of over-zealous rule writers that seem to make up the FED rules committee.

The difference in the FED rule has nothing to do with zealousness, either over or under.

The Fed rule difference has to due with FED's lack of confidence in the training, consistency and quality of its umpires.

Garth,

And you got this from......?

Multiple (at least 4) Fed Clinicians (including a state head clinician) a former member of the FED rules committee and Carl Childress.

And, you got the reason as "excessive or unwarranted passion for a cause" from.....?

I got it from seeing these folks butcher baseball rules every year for that last 19 years of working high school baseball, and every year saying "WTF did they make this or that stupid rule for?"

Can you really tell me with a straight face that you think some rules, like this one, make sense? Can you tell me what practical purpose killing the ball immediately on a balk serves? How about the rule that they almost fixed (half way) where the pitcher couldn't turn his shoulder when on the rubber? That was on the books for years, and what purpose did it serve? I could never make sense out it, and neither could my peers. There are so many more that I won't take the time to list, but they also make little sense.

There are obvious safety rules built in, which MAY be considered practical, but screwing with certain playing rules has always mystified me.

Hmmmm,
 

Steve:

While you can have whatever opinion you want (and state) about Federation Rules makers I would suggest you learn first about how high school rules are written.

Over the past 15 years 92% of all new rulings were requested by coaches. 3% of the new rules were requested by high school administrators. The remaining 5% of the rules were brought to committee by a varying number of peoples.

It appears to me that Garth's original point was related to an opinion about one of the four "self admitted" reasons FED has for making rules.

"#4 -- Rules and mechanics to help untrained umpires by eliminating judgment and complicated rotations of mechanics."

I used to call this section "dumb umpire rules."

Tee

Re: Hmmmm,
 

Oh. ;)

Okay, 95% were requested by coaches and administrators, so they automatically figured, "hey, these coaches are really on the ball, let's use their suggestions. After all, who would know more about the rules than a coach? Wait, I know, an administrator!"

Of the remaining 5%, I wonder how many were those "too dumb to understand the rules" umpires? Yeah, what the hell, let's just eliminate judgment, since what would these dumbasses know about that. These are the same people who go out of their way to make the rules complicated and confusing in nature, so much so that they cause arguments.

It seems that we should be the ones to ask about the rules, and not a whole lot of anybody else.

And these truly are JMO. I enforce the rules, but I don't have to like them.

Okay, so the short version is, you made it up. That's exactly one of the reasons we have the "dumb umpire" rules, too many just make stuff up.

I'll take the word of my sources over a "made up" reason.

Thanks anyway.

ô¡ô
 

Steve:

Federation rules meetings aren't driven like any other process I know.

At the very best a single umpire maybe on a specific rules committee (Tim Stevens -- State of Washington FED Rules Interpretor is on National committees).

Many people at FED believe that umpires do their job when they simply report what happens during a game. This philosophy is injected into rules meetings. Many, many committee chairpersons feel that rules of any sport should be established by participants and only "reported on" by officials.

While umpires may have an intimate knowledge of what happens during a game rules makers don't really think they need that input.

Many FEDlandia powers listen clearly to coaches and administrators since THEY are the end user. An official just keeps an honest system "kinda sorta" honest.

I agree that coaches and administrators may not be the best sources for defining rules HOWEVER I am not sure that umpires should be in the "rools writtin' bidness" . . .

I selected for many years to NOT WORK FED because I did not like their rules . . . I turned that emotion into understanding the "what and wherefore" of rules and have tried to work since that day to teach umpires that rules are guidelines that need to be followed.

I am not, in any way, trying to make you into a convert I just think it is interesting to understand the root issues that cause FED rules changes.

Tee

And, as most people know, the majority of rule changes in all sports, even at the profesional level does not come from the officials.


FED baseball is not unique in this.

Garth,

I was just stating my opinion on the subject, not trying to provoke any argument.

In my opinion, these rule makers show an unwavering adherence to their beliefs, which is one definition of zealous.