![]() |
|
|
|||
Quote:
Shall—used to express a command or exhortation |
|
|||
Quote:
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 |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
|
|||
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." |
|
|||
"That's correct, coach. However, the book does provide a penalty for refusing to comply when I direct him not to do that again."
__________________
Cheers, mb |
|
|||
Don't have all day
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.
__________________
SAump ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
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?
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
Quote:
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. |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Balk/No Balk: LHP fients pickoff the 3rd base | Mike6221 | Baseball | 4 | Sun Jun 07, 2009 09:47pm |
RHP in stretch facing 1st base (balk or no balk) | tem_blue | Baseball | 6 | Thu Jul 20, 2006 10:00pm |
Stealing Home, P in Windup, Balk or No Balk? | johnnyg08 | Baseball | 2 | Wed Jul 05, 2006 10:12am |
Was this a Balk ? I called it a Balk. | nickrego | Baseball | 20 | Fri May 12, 2006 06:07am |
Balk, Balk Yells the Coach!!! | Gre144 | Baseball | 12 | Tue Jul 10, 2001 07:32am |