Taking signs from the rubber

[Jim Porter]

Gentlemen,

The casebook comment under 8.01 tells us what the rule is for and what the penalty is. It's to keep the pitcher from, "step(ping) quickly onto the rubber and pitch(ing)." And if the pitcher does that, it, "may be judged a quick-pitch by the umpire."

If the pitcher isn't stepping quickly onto the rubber and quick-pitching, there is nothing to call.

Don't be pickers and leave those nits alone.

[ozzy6900]

Mario,

Check Fed 6-1 PENALTY (Art. 1,2,3) and your handy BRD.

In Fed this is a balk. (It may be handled by the PU wispering in F2's ear or BU asking F1 to let him examine the ball instead of making the call. The only person that can be sure it happened would be the BU in b or c.)

Roger Greene

Yes, it is a balk per the BRD. And your suggestion is usually the way that I handle it. And because we really do not know when the sign is given, it usually results in a "don't do that" type of situation.

[Jerry]

Roger and Mario:
The Penalties you reference in FED, I believe are for illegal pitches from the windup or set positions(not facing the batter, not having a pivot foot in contact with the rubber, stepping off incorrectly, etc.) not because he's taking signs from off the rubber or from someone other than the catcher. That taking of signs on the rubber reference is simply for purposes of indicating a sequence of events that should be occuring. Keep in mind that a "sign" could be as simple as the catcher holding his glove in a particular spot for the ball to be pitched to. And there is certainly no prohibition for a pitcher to receive instructions or signs from his coach, a parent, or another teamate at any time or any place other than being in contact with the rubber.

As an addendum to the above discussion, if you read the (32) situations listed in the FED Case Book for Rules 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3, you will find not a single one dealing with taking the signs on the rubber or from the catcher.

As for the BRD, I'm curious on what Carl is trying to say at 369.

Jerry

[Jerry]

For Roger and Mario . . . and others lurking.
I'm looking at a Referee Magazine (NASO) Q&A from last year. PLAY: NFHS, NCAA and PRO rules. A pitcher takes his sign while not in contact with the pitcher's plate (pro rules 8.01). Is it a balk?

RULING: (Paraphrased) . . . In NFHS, with no runners on base, it is an illegal pitch with a ball added to the batter's count. If any runners are on base, call a balk and advance the runners one base. Do not add a ball to the batter's count. . . . Under pro rules, only a warning is issued. Do not call a balk under pro rules. NASO strongly recommends that umpires not "hunt" for that violation while pursuing the goal of umpiring the game with as little interference as possible from the officials.

Soooooo . . . I now agree that under FED, it is in fact a balk.

BTW . . . I have NEVER, and probably NEVER will call a ball/balk for that infraction. Kind of like that "keep one foot in the box" reminder to FED batters.

Jerry

[Bfair]

Jerry, I did a HS league summer game last night.
During the game the pitcher, with no runners, starts his motion and discontinues it before pitching.

While this is nothing under OBR, it is an illegal pitch per Fed rule. I knew this, but few if any of the other people present at the game did. There was no questioning regarding the no-call.

No advantage was gained, and I could have shown all that I was the only one that knew the rule---although I'd suspect they wouldn't look at it that way.

Technicalities of the mound are typically enforced relative to OBR standards in this area of the country. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If this needs to be called, it needs to be agreed to at chapter meeting. I don't want to appear as Columbus looking for a new world when it comes to this call.

If advantage was gained, it would certainly make it a far more difficult decision. I tend to decide based on advantage/disadvantage and make the call. Of course, I also tend to be politically incorrect and a nitpicker for calling interference when it occurs. Many knowingly and admittedly overlook those calls to stay out of controversy. Still, they're doing as many of the other Romans are doing. IMO, batter interference is growing like a cancer in this area as few call it.


Just my opinion,

Freix