Pitcher going to his mouth

[biggravy]

Fed. Bases loaded, 2 outs. Pitcher in windup position. While on the rubber goes to his mouth, then wipes it off. Balk or no?

Case book 6.1.3 sit O has a balk in a similar situation but the interp is because he is to go directly to a set position.

Rule book 6-2-1-e has balk only if he does not wipe it off. No reference given to on the rubber or off.

Case book 6.2.1.a Has a ball on the batter if he is on the rubber.

Still I can find no cite in the rule book with a difference between on the rubber or off. Trying to settle a debate. Fellow official is on the side that it nothing because he is the windup. I am saying I have a balk. 6.2.1.a seems to back me up but I'm not afraid to be wrong and learn something new today!

[cookie]

In Fed baseball, if F1 is on the rubber with runners on, it is a balk if he goes to the mouth (regardless whether he wipes or not) unless there were allowances made (usually at the plate conference) for cold weather...

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by biggravy

Still I can find no cite in the rule book with a difference between on the rubber or off.

Off the rubber and wipes: Legal

Off the rubber, doesn't wipe, then engages: Ball (regardless of runners)

On the rubber: Illegal Pitch-Ball (no runners) / Balk (with runners). It's simulating a pitching motion / coming set.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Off the rubber and wipes: Legal

Off the rubber, doesn't wipe, then engages: Ball (regardless of runners)

On the rubber: Illegal Pitch-Ball (no runners) / Balk (with runners). It's simulating a pitching motion / coming set.

+1

From the windup (in FED), all F1 can do is step off or pitch to the batter. Going to his mouth is the start of the pitch, so he has "started and stopped." Balk.

[Dave Reed]

I agree that going to the mouth is a balk from the windup, but IMO the following case play (new in 2009) is inconsistent with the notion that "Going to his mouth is the start of the pitch."

*6.1.2 SITUATION D: F1, while on the pitcher’s plate in either the windup or set position, (a) adjusts his cap or (b) shakes off the signal with his glove, or (c) shakes off the signal with his head. RULING: In (a) through (c), these are legal actions if these movements of the arms and legs are not associated with the pitch.

It isn't obvious to me that going to the mouth is a noticeably different action than adjusting the cap.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I agree that going to the mouth is a balk from the windup, but IMO the following case play (new in 2009) is inconsistent with the notion that "Going to his mouth is the start of the pitch."

*6.1.2 SITUATION D: F1, while on the pitcher’s plate in either the windup or set position, (a) adjusts his cap or (b) shakes off the signal with his glove, or (c) shakes off the signal with his head. RULING: In (a) through (c), these are legal actions if these movements of the arms and legs are not associated with the pitch.

It isn't obvious to me that going to the mouth is a noticeably different action than adjusting the cap.

I agree and argued the same last year. I could dig up the post, but that's a lot of work for nothing. Fed's statement that it's simulating the pitch is incorrect or inconsistent, as Dave pointed out.

[Forest Ump]

Regarding going to the mouth while on the rubber.

In the 2011 BRD, Carl points out that it is now legal for a pitcher, while in the windup or the set, to adjust his cap or shake off the signal with his glove or hand. This was changed in 2010. Prior to 2010 this was not legal. Case book 6.1.2d

Carl adds the following note: At last the NFHS has dropped the charade that going to the mouth on the rubber is illegal because the pitcher has interrupted his pitching motion. (There is more written about this note. See BRD 375).

So it is no longer linked with interrupting the pitching motion. It's simply a balk because it is a balk. This is an easier argument to make IMHO.

[Rich Ives]

Somebody needs to ask FED how one can simulate a pitch/pitching motion with an empty hand.

Or is it that they assume the runners are that stupid.

Maybe I just answered the question.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Forest Ump

Regarding going to the mouth while on the rubber.

In the 2011 BRD, Carl points out that it is now legal for a pitcher, while in the windup or the set, to adjust his cap or shake off the signal with his glove or hand. This was changed in 2010. Prior to 2010 this was not legal. Case book 6.1.2d

Carl adds the following note: At last the NFHS has dropped the charade that going to the mouth on the rubber is illegal because the pitcher has interrupted his pitching motion. (There is more written about this note. See BRD 375).

So it is no longer linked with interrupting the pitching motion. It's simply a balk because it is a balk. This is an easier argument to make IMHO.

I don't think they've dropped that charade. I think they're just inconsistent. And, it was pointed out on multiple threads on multiple boards the year the change was made. But, FED hasn't changed the cae to match.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I agree that going to the mouth is a balk from the windup, but IMO the following case play (new in 2009) is inconsistent with the notion that "Going to his mouth is the start of the pitch."

*6.1.2 SITUATION D: F1, while on the pitcher’s plate in either the windup or set position, (a) adjusts his cap or (b) shakes off the signal with his glove, or (c) shakes off the signal with his head. RULING: In (a) through (c), these are legal actions if these movements of the arms and legs are not associated with the pitch.

It isn't obvious to me that going to the mouth is a noticeably different action than adjusting the cap.

Dave,

You are applying "logic" to understand a FED ruling. That's not "how they roll".

JM

[Lapopez]

I had to laugh when I got to the end of this thread. At the bottom, where it says "Similar Threads," is a thread I started three years ago where I argued, with no support from anybody, that going to the mouth did not simulate the start of a pitch. That thread was the only thread I have ever started, on any internet forum, that was locked.

[UmpJM]

Lapopez,

Well, at least you've got the one!

Thanks for the trip down "memory lane".

JM