Balk?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by mikebran

Wow. I'm standing on my head, listening to Abby Road backwards and the OFFICIAL RULES OF BASEBALL STILL SAY

..shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher plate

PLEASE INVITE ME TO THIS GAME...


Pitcher is clearly straddling rubber, leaning in and taking signs.

Base coach: Hey Mr. Official, doesn't he need to be in contact with the rubber to take signs.

Official: He's not doing anything illegal, so go pound sand

Base coach: muttering.. I swear I read that once, oh well, the umpire is always right!

Your "coach-umpire" conversation is correct. Furthermore, when F1 is straddling the pitching plate he is an infielder and not a pitcher. Now let us go one step further:

"F1 is clearly straddling the pitcher's plate, leaning in and taking signs. F1 then makes intentional contact with the pitcher's plate, leans in and takes or simulates taking signs from F2." Has F1 violated any thing in NFHS Rule 6?

OR

"F1 is clearly straddling the pitcher's plate, leaning in and taking signs. F1 then makes intentional contact with the pitcher's plate, and immediately throws a pitch to the batter." Has F1 violated any thing in NFHS Rule 6?

The answer to the former is NO, and the answer to the latter is YES.

MTD, Sr.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Your "coach-umpire" conversation is correct. Furthermore, when F1 is straddling the pitching plate he is an infielder and not a pitcher. Now let us go one step further:

"F1 is clearly straddling the pitcher's plate, leaning in and taking signs. F1 then makes intentional contact with the pitcher's plate, leans in and takes or simulates taking signs from F2." Has F1 violated any thing in NFHS Rule 6?

OR

"F1 is clearly straddling the pitcher's plate, leaning in and taking signs. F1 then makes intentional contact with the pitcher's plate, and immediately throws a pitch to the batter." Has F1 violated any thing in NFHS Rule 6?

The answer to the former is NO, and the answer to the latter is YES.

MTD, Sr.

You seem to believe that because a penalty is not specifically mentioned, that a written statement in the rulebook doesn't exist.

That is incorrect.

There are several such statements in the book, the requirement of the pitcher taking signs from the rubber being just one.

Feel free to ingore the rule if you'd like, but to insist it isn't there is BS.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You seem to believe that because a penalty is not specifically mentioned, that a written statement in the rulebook doesn't exist.

That is incorrect.

There are several such statements in the book, the requirement of the pitcher taking signs from the rubber being just one.

Feel free to ingore the rule if you'd like, but to insist it isn't there is BS.

I think you are looking for boogers. (or splitting hairs)

The intent of the rule is to keep the pitcher from quick pitching. How many pitchers only throw one pitch and get no signs from the catcher? As long as he gives the batter ample time, its well within the intent of the rule.

[UmpJM]

MrUmpire,

I find MTD's suggested rulings entirely in accordance with the text of the rule, it's intended purpose, and the suggested interpretation and application found in both the JEA and J/R.

I believe you are suggesting the existence of a rule which simply does not exist.

JM

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by umpjong

I think you are looking for boogers. (or splitting hairs)

The intent of the rule is to keep the pitcher from quick pitching. How many pitchers only throw one pitch and get no signs from the catcher? As long as he gives the batter ample time, its well within the intent of the rule.

Just batters?

Runners also need ample time and are generally taught not to leave the bag until the pitcher's on the rubber.

It's deceiving and it's against the rules for more than one reason.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Just batters?

Runners also need ample time and are generally taught not to leave the bag until the pitcher's on the rubber.

It's deceiving and it's against the rules for more than one reason.

Runners are (should be) coached that the can start their lead as soon as the pitcher is on or astride the rubber - because it's a balk if he doesn't have the ball. Even if he quick-pitches, the runners willl still have their lead established.

[umpjong]

Originally Posted by umpjong

I think you are looking for boogers. (or splitting hairs)

The intent of the rule is to keep the pitcher from quick pitching. How many pitchers only throw one pitch and get no signs from the catcher? As long as he gives the batter and runners ample time, its well within the intent of the rule.

Fixed...

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

MrUmpire,

I find MTD's suggested rulings entirely in accordance with the text of the rule, it's intended purpose, and the suggested interpretation and application found in both the JEA and J/R.

I believe you are suggesting the existence of a rule which simply does not exist.

JM

On the contrary, the rule does exist. At least it's in my copy of the OBR, JEA and J/R.

I am merely responding to MTD's earlier posts that, in essence, denied it's existence.

I care not how you choose to, or choose not to enforce it. I simply rebel when one claims something that I can see does not exist.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by umpjong

I think you are looking for boogers. (or splitting hairs)

The intent of the rule is to keep the pitcher from quick pitching. How many pitchers only throw one pitch and get no signs from the catcher? As long as he gives the batter ample time, its well within the intent of the rule.

I'm looking for nothing. I simply can read.

I don't give a flying phuck if you or anyone enforces it or not. At least you admit the rule exists. MTD has tried to sell the belief it isn't there at all.

[UmpJM]

MrUmpire,

Could you give me a cite please, because I can't find it.

The only one I can find says that when he's on the rubber he shall take his signs from the catcher.

As the rulebook language sugggests, this is to prevent the pitcher gaining an unintended advantage over the batter or runners by engaging the rubber and immediately "hurrying into the pitch" without pausing to take signs:

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rubber and pitch. This may be judged a quick pitch by the umpire. When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides. Pitchers will not be allowed to disengage the rubber
after taking each sign.

The one you're talking about that prohibits the pitcher from taking signs while he's not on the rubber I can't find in the rule book or any interpretations manual.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

MrUmpire,

Could you give me a cite please, because I can't find it.

The only one I can find says that when he's on the rubber he shall take his signs from the catcher.

Then you've found it.

The one you're talking about that prohibits the pitcher from taking signs while he's not on the rubber

Where did I say that?

[SAump]

FED 6-1-1 "He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate."

The intention here is to establish the pitcher, apart from the other infielders.

FED 6-1-1 "The pitching regulations begin when he intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate."

The intention here is to establish the time frame when a pitcher becomes subject to all pitching regulations.

One cannot call a balk until the pitcher has first made contact with the pitcher's plate. Valid justifications for which a proper balk penalty may be charged against the pitcher are found in FED rule 6-2-4. This rule requires the pitcher to be touching the pitcher's plate.

FED 6-2-5 "It is also a balk if a runner or runners are on base and the pitcher, while he is not touching the pitcher's plate makes any movement naturally associated with his pitch, ... "

Merely placing his feet on or "astride" the pitcher's plate does not qualify as movement associated with his pitch. Taking signs does not qualify as movement associated with his pitch. Now I do suppose that one could interpret "or he places his feet on or astride the pitcher's plate" with the ball in his hand as a prerequisite for a balk, but it would be difficult to justify a balk in the OP.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Runners are (should be) coached that the can start their lead as soon as the pitcher is on or astride the rubber - because it's a balk if he doesn't have the ball. Even if he quick-pitches, the runners willl still have their lead established.

Ooohhhh ...

I learn so much about baseball coaching here.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Kevin Finnerty

Ooohhhh ...

I learn so much about baseball coaching here.

Maybe you need it.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Maybe you need it.

Oh, I'll bet that hurt. He may never recover.

What wit.

Did you spend a lot of time working on that "zinger" or do you subscribe to some coaches' service that provides such provocative and scorching comments?