Balk?

[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

[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.

[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"

[Ump Rube]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

I understand your logic on this, but I think that the term Illegal Pitch maybe a misnomer.

2-18: An illegal pitch is an illegal act committed by the pitcher... (blah, blah, blah not relevant to this).

I see it the same as the mouth-ball scenario, he has not pitched, but has done an illegal act.

[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

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

A dangerous argument. The rules also say a batter is awarded a base on four balls. I guess that doesn't mean he can't also be awarded a base on three balls.

I prefer to accept the common usage of the language. The rulesmakers said SHALL, and I believe they meant it.

I understand the lack of specific penalty, nonetheless, by rule they SHALL take signs from the rubber.

[jwwashburn]

I posted it and have been away from the computer all day.

I think the rule is poorly worded. If you "cannot" do something then, there has to be a consequence.

I called my friend and he told me a little more. The BU actually tried the "Don't do that." and the coach asked for time and said "There is no penalty in the book that deals with this."

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by jwwashburn

I called my friend and he told me a little more. The BU actually tried the "Don't do that." and the coach asked for time and said "There is no penalty in the book that deals with this."

"That's correct, coach. However, the book does provide a penalty for refusing to comply when I direct him not to do that again."

[jwwashburn]

Right, that makes sense. I was relaying the conversation without even thinking.

[SAump]

The directive to take signs while on the rubber prevents the pitcher from taking them from anywhere else in the IF. So the pitcher must have the ball in hand, stand on the rubber and take his signs. Otherwise, how can the umpire direct the batter to stand in the batter's box and begin play?

This would also prevent both the pitcher and the batter from camping out between each pitch. The umpire would certainly be within his right to warn and eject here. Now if the rule had any teeth, a "ball" would be added to the count if it warranted a delay of game penalty.

[JR12]

The J/R manual suggests
1st offense: Call time and direct F1 to correct his actions or discuss it with him or manager during a dead ball.

2nd offense: Warn

3rd offense: Eject

[SanDiegoSteve]

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

Yes, but does Maggie May get any dirtier when she's played backwards? Holy I am the Eggman, Batman!

[cbfoulds]

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"

And your point?

It is, indeed, mandatory that F1 [at least appear to] take a sign [from F2] while engaged/ on the rubber.

There is, however, nothing in the Rules that PROHIBITS F1 from taking a sign before engaging, nor taking one from the dugout, his dad or girlfriend in the stands, or The Great Hairy Thunderer; AS LONG AS he ALSO takes [or appears to take] a sign from F2 while engaged and before pitching.

Since anything other than a quick pitch will be interpreted [by any competent umpire] as "taking a sign", the mandatory portion of the Rule is complied with.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

A dangerous argument. The rules also say a batter is awarded a base on four balls. I guess that doesn't mean he can't also be awarded a base on three balls.

I prefer to accept the common usage of the language. The rulesmakers said SHALL, and I believe they meant it.

I understand the lack of specific penalty, nonetheless, by rule they SHALL take signs from the rubber.

The rule says

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

So if he's getting signs from the catcher he must do it from the rubber.

But where does it say he can't get signs from someone else?

Where does it say he has to be on the rubber when getting a sign from someone else? The rule seems to only cover signs received from the catcher.

Do you think it means he must get a sign i.e. is giving/getting a sign required?