Balk?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by JR12

Because we are paid to enforce the rules. While it is not something we look for or even care about (as long as he isn't trying to quick pitch) if it's brought to my attention I would tell him to take his sign while on the rubber.

F1 has done nothing illegal when takes a sign while straddling the rubber and then engages the pitchign plate and takes or simulates taking a sign. By taking or simulating taking a sign while in contact with the pitchign plate, F1 has met the requirements of the rules. There is nothing in the rules that prohibites F1 from taking a sign while not in contact with the pitching plate. But it is illegal not to take or simulate taking a sign while in contact with the pitching plate and then pitching the ball; that is a quick pitch.'

MTD, Sr.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

F1 has done nothing illegal when takes a sign while straddling the rubber and then engages the pitchign plate and takes or simulates taking a sign. By taking or simulating taking a sign while in contact with the pitchign plate, F1 has met the requirements of the rules. There is nothing in the rules that prohibites F1 from taking a sign while not in contact with the pitching plate. But it is illegal not to take or simulate taking a sign while in contact with the pitching plate and then pitching the ball; that is a quick pitch.'

MTD, Sr.

IMHO there is more to this requirement than the part about quick pitching. By leaning in and taking the sign, he is indicating to the runner that he is engaged. The runner, therefore, assumes that there must be a disengagement or step before there can be a pickoff throw. If the pitcher makes a snap throw without the disengagement or step, he has gained an advantage.

I am in MByron's camp on this one. Warn, then warn again, then warn again. I do not think it would ever get to an ejection.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Blue37

IMHO there is more to this requirement than the part about quick pitching. By leaning in and taking the sign, he is indicating to the runner that he is engaged. The runner, therefore, assumes that there must be a disengagement or step before there can be a pickoff throw. If the pitcher makes a snap throw without the disengagement or step, he has gained an advantage.

I am in MByron's camp on this one. Warn, then warn again, then warn again. I do not think it would ever get to an ejection.

The pitcher doesn't have to lean in and get a sign. He doesn't have to "stretch". He can take a sign from the actual set if he wants to. He doesn't even have to take a sign. He just can't quick pitch.

The pitcher cannot be on or astride the rubber (OBR) or within about 5' of the rubber (FED) without the ball. THAT is the runner's indication that the pitcher has the ball. After that the runner's on his own.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The pitcher doesn't have to lean in and get a sign. He doesn't have to "stretch". He can take a sign from the actual set if he wants to. He doesn't even have to take a sign. He just can't quick pitch.

The pitcher cannot be on or astride the rubber (OBR) or within about 5' of the rubber (FED) without the ball. THAT is the runner's indication that the pitcher has the ball. After that the runner's on his own.

I agree. This is consistent with how I was taught to interpret the provision of 8.01 from the OP: If the pitcher takes a sign, then he shall do so while in contact with the rubber. That's equivalent to saying: if he's off the rubber, he can't take signs.

FWIW, I never get into the business of determining what counts as a "sign." This is one of the reasons to ignore all of this until somebody complains or it's obvious that the defense is attempting to illegally deceive the runner(s).

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Blue37:

You said: "By leaning in and taking the sign, he is indicating to the runner that he is engaged." Are you tellling me that the runner is not capable of seeing whether F1 is in contact with the pitching plate? If the runner can not tell that F1 is not in contact with the pitching plate, he needs to have his eyes checked and get glasses. My sons have played baseball since they were playing YMCA coach-pitch, and they have said time and time again, that they can tell when F1 is in contact with the pitching plate and when F1 is not.

You said: "The runner, therefore, assumes that there must be a disengagement or step before there can be a pickoff throw." Once again, it is too bad if the runner's eye sight is not good enough to tell that F1 is not in contact with the pitching plate.

You said: "If the pitcher makes a snap throw without the disengagement or step, he has gained an advantage." If F1 is in contact with the pitching plate he has to follow the rules of pitching. BUT, if F1 is not in contact with the pitching plate he is an infielder and can throw anywhere or feint anywhere he pleases.

MTD, Sr.

[Rufus]

Can anyone please provide the rule/penalty under Fed? Our son plays in a travel team and they use Fed in that league (instead of USSSA/OBR like the recreational league I coach in). The umpire called a balk when the pitcher on my son's team took signs while not engaged with the plate. I didn't think it was right but, like I said, I'm more familiar with the USSSA/OBR rule that you all have discussed here.

Thanks in advance.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Rufus

Can anyone please provide the rule/penalty under Fed?

6-1-1:

*snip*
"He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate."
*snip*

The penalty is the same as OBR: "don't do that."

[Ump Rube]

PENALTY (ART. 1, 2, 3): The ball is dad immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner on, a ball is awarded to the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk.

Would not this in FED then be a ball/balk?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Ump Rube

PENALTY (ART. 1, 2, 3): The ball is dad immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner on, a ball is awarded to the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk.

Would not this in FED then be a ball/balk?

There's much dispute on that point. Some argue as you do. Some have recollection of a FED test question from some years back that this is a balk. Some argue that since pitching restrictions haven't begun, the penalty in 1, 2, 3 can't apply. Some argue that it really is the same as the OBR rule, depsite how it might be worded (and all agree that there is some wording that's confusing).

So, there's no clear cut answer.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Ump Rube

PENALTY (ART. 1, 2, 3): The ball is dad immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner on, a ball is awarded to the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk.

Would not this in FED then be a ball/balk?

I argue no: violating the provision of 6-1-1 requiring F1 to take signs while in contact is not a pitch. Thus it can't be an illegal pitch. Thus the penalty for an illegal pitch does not apply to this violation.

[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.

[mikebran]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

F1 has done nothing illegal when takes a sign while straddling the rubber

.

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!

[UmpJM]

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

Mike,

They certainly do.

However, I cannot find the part that says he cannot (also) takes signs while he is NOT in contact with the rubber.

As long as he DOES take signs once he does get on the rubber, he has not violated the rule you cite.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Mike,

They certainly do.

However, I cannot find the part that says he cannot (also) takes signs while he is NOT in contact with the rubber.

As long as he DOES take signs once he does get on the rubber, he has not violated the rule you cite.

JM

Shall—used to express a command or exhortation b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory "it shall be unlawful to carry firearms"

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Shall—used to express a command or exhortation b—used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory "it shall be unlawful to carry firearms"

But, just because you "shall" do something, does not mean you can't also do something else.

If F1 takes signs off the rubber, then takes them on the rubber, he has complied with the directive that he "shall" take them on the rubber. (The wording doesn't say "shall take signs only while on the rubber" for example.) In any event, it's somewhat pointless, imo, to argue the fine meanings of some of the phrases.

This saying could apply to FED and OBR rules: “I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”--Robert McCloskey