Taking signs from the rubber

[CVLLBlue]

8.01 states "Pitchers shall take sign from the catcher while standing on the pitching plate."

In a Little League Junior Division game yesterday, there was a balk called for the pitcher taking a sign and then stepping on the rubber, without there being a quickpitch thrown.

The umpire that called the balk made reference to a relative that has coached H.S. ball and is a scout for a M.L.B. team, and stated he supports this being a balk.

I have looked up all that I can find on the internet, including Jim Booth's explantion as to why this is not a balk, and can only find a few IMOs that support a balk but no case ruling either way.

Can anyone tell me where to get a case ruling that supports either decision for Little League? Also, does Fed or any other organization allow this to be called as a balk?

John

[mick]

8.01 Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standingon the rubber.

Comment: The pitcher may take signs from the manager or coach while on the rubber as long as he/she does not unecessarily delay the game. This is also to prevent the pitcher from throwing a "quick pitch" by taking the sign while off the rubber and quickly walking through the pitching motion. If the manager/coach insists on calling pitched, the manager/coach should give the sign to the catcher who relays it it to the pitcher while he/she is on the rubber.

Although, it seems the intent of the pitcher was not to "quick pitch", since he then stepped on the rubber, it would seem apparent to me to warn before I balk in the local regular season.
13 yr.-olds are not a smart as we would like them to be.
mick

[Roger Greene]

John,

If using OBR then it is not a balk. You instruct the pitcher to comply and then have him replaced if he refuses. (Remember, there is no violation for the pitcher taking all the signs he wants, from whoever wants to give them before he steps on the rubber, as long as he takes some sign from F2 after he steps on the plate. If he looks at F2 you should assume he took a signal. After all, F2's signal could be as subtle as a blink.)

Under Fed rules, failing to take a signal from F2 after taking the pitcher's plate is a balk. There are a number of ways to balk in Fed that are not a balk under OBR.

Roger Greene

[senior]

Your "Umpire" is in for a world of excrement if he continues to make calls based on what his friends think.

Not only do most High School coaches leave a lot to be desired on rules knowledge, Major League scouts are not required to be rules gurus.

Umpires, however, independent of what their "friends" know, are required to know the rules of the level of ball they are calling. Little League, Fed., and Major League ball all have different rule applications, not only on balks, but many other areas.

Your "Umpire" will do everyone a favor if he learns the rules for the games he's doing, and leaves out his friends opinions.


Senior

[Rog]

re: "Umpires, however, independent of what their "friends" know, are required to know the rules of the level of ball they are calling. Little League, Fed., and Major League ball all have different rule applications, not only on balks, but many other areas."

Maybe in some parts of the world; but, not this part! Heck, most don't know about the OBR.....

[bluezebra]

Pitcher takes sign from bench, steps on rubber, looks in a catcher, then pitches. I see nothing wrong here. If that bothers some people, have catcher get sign from bench, then give to pitcher.

Bob

[ozzy6900]

As long as there is no quick pitch involved:

FED = "Don't do that"
NCAA = "Don't do that"
OBR = "Don't do that"
LL = "Don't do that"

This excriment that was spread at the game in question stinks to high heaven!

[Roger Greene]

Originally posted by ozzy6900
As long as there is no quick pitch involved:

FED = "Don't do that"

This excriment that was spread at the game in question stinks to high heaven!

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

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Roger Greene


John,
If using OBR then it is not a balk.

I don't know why people say this is not a balk.

The penalty, if any, for not taking signals while on the rubber is unaddressed. While some advocate warning him and then ejection if further action persists, I find ejection of an amateur pitcher for his lack of concentration or habit as an extreme.

While appropriate to eject a player or coach for willful and persistent violation of an umpire's orders, I don't think this is a situation where the action is willfully ingnoring the umpire.

The situation is not specifically addressed in OBR.
It seems those words should ring a bell to most and coincide with 9.01(c). It is left up to the umpire's judgment. Therefore, if the umpire elects to penalize with a balk, then so be it. It is NOT wrong, although others may elect to take different avenues.

Myself, I'd provide plenty of warnings before applying any penalty, still, if the offender continued the actions I'd let it be known the action would be considered a balk. I'd choose that option before ejection. That's my perogative per 9.01(c), and I feel it shows far more CSFP than to eject a pitcher because he lacks ability or concentration to the technicalities of pitching.

Baseball is about playing the game, and it shouldn't be impacted by needless ejections. Let me know the outcome next time you dump some 10 yr. old kid because he's taking signals while off the rubber. While many preach it on the web, I'd hope it's never been done. Why have a penalty that is not prescribed that makes you look like a total a$$hole? And believe me, ejecting some 10 yr. old kid for this reason would make YOU look like a total a$$hole.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Roger Greene]

Steve,
I appreciate your concern about my reputation, but I've never went to that length, or even advocated the ejection in my post.

You'll note I said "replaced".

I have had young F1s with such a case of nerves that they were lost. Reminders to F2 as F1 was looking in from behind the rubber for a signal to wait for F1 to step up have, in all my expirence, solved this problem.

This past weekend, filing in for an umpire that called in sick for a 12 & u game, I warned a pitcher twice about a techinical balk he was commiting in the set position. after the end of the 1st inning I went to his manager and informed him about the problem, and asked him to keep it from occuring again. He thanks me and in the 2nd inning F6 had become F1,and F1 was now F6. Problem solved. F1 has been "replaced" without ejection. Manager happy, I'm happy, opposing 1st base coach (who also recognized balk and my talk with original F1 while kicking dirt off pitcher's plate happy) and my reputation is intact.

Roger Greene

[Jerry]

Steve,
Balks are specifically covered in OBR 8.05. An umpire would be hard pressed to call anything else (except as provided in the rules) a balk. (Such as 8.01 "Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber.")

Furthermore, per OBR "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliverately deceiving the base runner." Unless you determine somehow that the pitcher is deceiving the base runner by taking signs either off the rubber or from someone other than the catcher, it'd be tough to call a "balk".

The most we could do, I suspect, would be to instruct the pitcher to comply with the rules. If for some stupid reason he fails to comply, you may forfeit the game to the opposing team for willfully and persistently violating any rules of the game. (4.15(e))

Me? I sure wouldn't make a mountain out of a mole-hill. Tell the pitcher he can't do whatever it is he's doing (or not doing)and get on with the game. Heck . . . some pitchers don't even take signs! Some give signs (instead of getting them).

Jerry

[Bfair]

First, to Roger I apologize. I did not mean my post as a personal attack,
but you had put the words so nicely in your post to requote................

Still, while you say you would have the pitcher "replaced", I'd find a balk more relative. If I'm not going to eject a player, then I don't know of anywhere in the rules or rulings that provide me authority to tell a coach where his players may or not play while they are still eligible for a position per the rules. Yet, under 9.01(c), I'd support your decision if you were to choose that avenue of enforcement.

---

I disagree with Jerry. 9.01(c) allows an official to rule on any point not specifically covered in the rules. A penalty for not meeting the criteria of 8.01 is not specifically covered. That allows enforcement to fall under 9.01(c).

Although you may choose a different alternative, an umpire choosing to apply a balk to the situation in question is not wrong. He, in fact, is exercising his rights granted under 9.01(c). Frankly, I would advocate a balk after warning(s) for amateur baseball. I can truly say that in 23 years of umpiring I've never judged the action of pitcher in taking signs off the rubber as being willfull and deliberate action to ignore an umpire's instructions. Usually it's some dufus on the rubber who knows little about pitching. Still, the issue should be addressed and not allowed to continue. Calling a balk is a slap on the hand; ejecting the player is the death penalty for him. The players are there because because they want to play baseball; not because they are getting paid to play baseball.

IMO, ejecting an amateur pitcher for this action is nonsense and not congruent with CSFP. Applying a balk after warning(s) IS using CSFP. Since the action is covered under pitching regulations, it could be reasoned that a pitcher is gaining an advantage while taking signals off the rubber. A balk could be considered a penalty imposed elsewhere when a pitcher gains an unintended advantage. Still, I would not argue with an umpire who might elect to declare a ball on a batter for such pitcher's action. Bottom line, it's the perogative of the official per 9.01(c).

Now, if you want to tell me that the situation IS specifically covered elsewhere, than that certainly undermines the use of 9.01(c). If that's the case, please cite the rule, ruling, or caseplay.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Jerry]

Steve,
Let's agree it's unlikely either you or I would call anything if the pitcher doesn't take his signs on the rubber . . . or in OBR, from the catcher as well. Okay? I think we all agree that a "you can't do that" would certainly be sufficient.

I'm extending my argument and discussion for NOT calling a balk (under 9.01c) for a couple of additional reasons. First . . . by definition, a balk itself is an "illegal act"; the penalty is the awarding of a base to the runners. The rules DO cite when a balk is to be awarded. They also cite what consitutes a balk. I don't believe 9.01c gives us the right to expand on either of those.

Secondly, it makes no difference whether runners are on base or not. The pitcher is required to take the signs from the rubber in either case. Your imposition of a "balk" penalty (using 9.01c) would be inconsistent and not applicable with no runners on base.

Thus, I maintain that a "Don't do that" is really all you could invoke. Why issue a penalty at all?

Jerry

[Bfair]

You are absolutely correct, Jerry, in that neither of us would balk or eject for this reason. Still, I support the newbies that attempt to address it through a balk, and I abhor the thought of anyone advocating and promoting ejection of a player for this reason. I feel that action is ludicrous for amateur baseball. Still, both remedies can be supported by 9.01(c). Hopefully their game management will improve with experience.

If push comes to shove, the mistake of calling a balk for this reason is far better than the mistake of ejecting some dufus pitcher.............


Just my opinion,

Freix

[CVLLBlue]

Thanks for all the input. I believe I have convince the guy who called the balk to take note of all the opinions expressed here.

We are in the wrap up stages of our District All Stars Little League Tournament and I am trying to do what I can to make sure our umpires let the kids focus on the game at hand they have worked so hard to get to rather than look for the obscure call.

Personally, I think as long as there is no advantage to the defense, (ie a quick pitch), a warning should be sufficient.

Thanks again,

John