Balk?
 

I had a friend from Michigan call me up about this one.

OBR

Runner on 1st-Pitcher leaned in and took signs while straddling the rubber. He then engaged, stretched, set and pitched. I do not think I have ever seen that. He did not balk him but wondered if he should have balked him.

8.01 Legal pitching delivery. There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time.
Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher’s plate.
Rule 8.01 Comment: 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.

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—
(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate;

If he is doing something goofy to deceive the runners, don't we have the responsibility to balk him? Also, he was a lefty and they should not be allowed to pitch, anyway.

Joe in Missouri

No Balk. At the most, it's a don't do that and that's only after a complaint from the offense. Don't look for trouble, it will find you.

Agreed. No penalty listed in OBR.

Why is it "a don't do that again" scenario? If the pitcher did nothing illegal, I do not care who much the howler monkey from the offensive team screams, I am not going to say anything unless F1 quick pitches and then I am going to balk him.

MTD, Sr.

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.

Mark, the pitcher violated the provision that he shall take his signs from the rubber.

The issue is not that he did nothing illegal; it's that what he did carries no penalty. A violation that carries no specific penalty is still a violation. Compare the rule requiring all infielders to be in fair territory. No penalty for a violation of that provision either (and enforcement is similar).

Therefore, proper procedure is "don't do that," or in more official parlance, warn and then eject.

Depending on the level, I might ignore this; or I might address it with the coach between innings; or I might warn and then eject.

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.

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).

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.

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.

a 3 "WOW" rating
 

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!

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."

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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."

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

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Fixed...

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.

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.

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:

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

Then you've found it.


Where did I say that?

Just ask FED for help
 

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.

Ooohhhh ... :confused:

I learn so much about baseball coaching here.

Maybe you need it.

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

What wit.:rolleyes:

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?

MrUmpire PLEASE read before putting words that I did not say in my mouth.
 

I have NEVER said that there is no such rule. What I have said is: It DOES NOT matter if F1 DOES or DOES NOT take signs from F2 while not in contact with the pitcher's plate, BUT F1, at some point after making contact with the pitcher's plate, must take or simulate taking signs from F2 before he can legally pitch to the batter. If he DOES NOT, after making contact with the pitcher's plate, take or simulate taking signs from F2 before he pitches the ball to the batter, then he has violated a requirement of NFHS Rule 6."

MTD, Sr.

This just went from an interesting discussion to nothing real quick.

I have a question. Since I do not do Fed ball, what does the rule say which covers the part about "he must take or simulate to take signs from the catcher"?

As long as the pitcher doesn't quick pitch, then he should be OK to not simulate taking signs. For instance, LHP stands astride rubber looking at 1B. Batter steps in with plenty of time to get ready. F1 checks batter and F2 to make sure they are in place. He steps on the rubber while looking at 1B still and comes set still looking. Then, pitches the ball. Since he never looked at F2 for a sign, a balk is called on him for this?

So in Fed, it is a balk while in OBR(and possibly NCAA) it is legal? Interesting and another good reason why I don't like Fed rules.

Mark, that is not the intent of the rule. He does not HAVE to take signs at all. Remember Jim Katt, he made a living with the "almost quick pitch".
I think that's what you are saying, but it was not very clear to me.

The majority of small ball players don't take signs either. They just get on the mound and pitch.

As long as they are not in the umpires judgement making a quick pitch all is well. If F1 in the umpires judgement delivers a quick pitch, then the umpire has to take further action.

PU has the responsibility to protect the batter in this situation.
But if the batter is ready, F1 toes the rubber (with a little bit of a pause) and then pitches, he has violated no rules.

Thanks
David

I posted the sentence from 6-1-1 that you're asking about above, post #14. OBR has the same provision: the second sentence of 8.01 is, "Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher’s plate." And this is NOT a balk in any rule code: it's a "don't do that." Geez, how many errors can you pack into one little post?

No rule code AFAIK uses the word 'simulate' in this context. I think JM first added that word in this thread.

Your sitch is not a balk. The rule does not require F1 to take signs; it specifies that he's to be on the rubber if he does so.

Frankly, I'm not sure why this thread became so warm, since I suspect that all of the good umpires arguing here enforce this provision exactly the same.

I agree. This is just a "Don't do that" issue. It is no bigger of an issue than it has been blown up to be. And, is only there to prevent quick pitches b/c those are a balk and also, dangerous. Taking or not taking signs on or off the rubber has no bearing on anything other than a possible "Don't do that".

This is a softball thing.
NFHS softball rule 6-1-1-b: "While in this position [on the pitcher's plate], the pitcher shall take (or simulate taking) a signal from the catcher."
ASA 6-1-D: "While on the pitching plate, the pitcher shall take the signal or appear to be taking a signal with the hands separated."

Oh sorry: when I said "no rule code," naturally on the baseball forum I assumed everyone knew I was talking about baseball rules.

Maybe soccer and wrestling rules use the word 'simulate' too. How interesting! [/sarcasm]

While I agree with you that all of the GOOD umpires here probably enforce this the same way, I also guarantee you that there are several hardheads who will balk a kid who takes any sign from anywhere except F2, at any time except on the rubber.

This is one of 3 or 4 rules issues that in my experience distinguish between Real [tm] Umpires and Yokels in Uniforms: Yokels balk kids for "taking signs" from, for example, the dugout; or not taking any sign at all; despite the fact that the kid comes in contact, pauses and looks into F2, and pitches having given everyone ample opportunity to be ready. The said Yokels do this on the same assinine "I can read" theory expounded by several posters inthis thread.

A painfully LONG experience of frustration trying to deal with the ignorance of Yokels [as I am sure that my experience is shared by many] is probably why this thread "got so warm."

F1 taking signs from anybody while not in contact with the pitcher's plate is NOT a "don't do that" because it is not illegal. It is ILLEGAL for a pitcher to NOT take or simulate taking a signal from F2 while in contact with the pitcher's plate.

MTD, Sr.

He can't simulate that he "is" on the rubber while taking signs...it's a deception thing.

So it is illegal for a pitcher to choose to not take signals? Really?

Any clearer?

In baseball, it is not illegal for F1 to not take (or simulate) to take signs from F2. What is the exact wording and where can I find that rule at?

The rule is he shouldn't take signs from F2 while straddling the rubber to prevent a quick pitch. But, if he isn't quick pitching, then it is nothing. It is just a "Don't do that" issue to prevent a quick pitch. It is not a balk. It is nothing more than "Don't do that or you may be ejected" to prevent the quick pitch which is illegal. There is no penalty for not taking signs from F2. He doesn't have to simulate it in any manner.

Again, F1 steps on the rubber looking at 1B. He comes set still looking at 1B. He pitches to F2 while never looking at him prior to the pitch. Completely LEGAL and he did not look or simulate looking at F2. No balk and not even a "Don't do that" b/c he doesn't have to look at F2 for signs. Nothing says signs have to be given on pitches. That is just a way for F1 and F2 to know what is being thrown.

I can't believe anyone would even consider balking F1 for not looking at F2 for signs. Nothing about giving signs from F2 is in any rule book. That is a made up rule at its worst.

Please note that all rule sets interpret these rules as the pitcher must, at least one time (simulating or taking a sign if you will), look into the area of the catcher/batter/plate after engaging the rubber and prior to delivery of the pitch. Some call this "addressing the batter", but some form of look in must be made every time the pitcher reengages the rubber. Been this way for decades.....;)

No.

This is, though:

8.01 LEGAL PITCHING DELIVERY

There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time.

Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber.

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.

Tempers flaring up

Umpires can't agree on sh*t

Jenkins has last word.

That's a good haiku.

I rarely have the last word.

This thread not yet closed.

Yoda or Jar Jar Binks?

Dave:

I hate to disappoint you, but the requirement for the pitcher to take or simulate taking a signal from the catcher after he has engaged the pitching plate IS to prevent a quick pitch; it prevents a pitcher from engaging the pitching plate and immediately going into his pitching motion.

As far as very young players not taking a signal, I agree that until players get to be 12 or 13 years of age, they only have one pitch, but that still does not mean that they do not at least simulate taking a pitch. A MLB pitcher who is a knuckleballer has only one pitch, but he still has to at least simulate taking a sign from his catcher after engaging the pitching plate before starting his pitching motion.

MTD, Sr.