I guess your argument revolves around the absence of the word "only" from the 8.01 sentence "<i>Pitchers shall take signs from the rubber</i>". It is certainly possible to make that argument from the rule language alone, and it would still fit with the presumed intent to prevent a quick pitch situation.

As the reference Jerry found points out, however, an original purpose of the rule was evidently also to speed up the game. Remember that the ball cannot be put back into play until the pitcher is on the rubber. Allowing the pitcher to take signs from anywhere off the rubber is going to delay that process AND in so doing it gives the defense the distinct advantage of having the ball remain dead while they figure out what they're going to do next. That anchors the offensive runners to their bases during the decision-making process.

Perhaps the intent was also to allow the offense to hurry up that process by making it possible for them to steal while signs are being taken by the defense. It certainly puts extra pressure on the pitcher and catcher to remain vigilant while signalling.

As long as the pitcher is taking signs it also becomes very difficult to make an argument for him deliberately delaying the game under OBR 8.05(h), especially if the ball is dead the whole time. There has to be some pressure on the defense for that process to be completed as quickly as possible. That pressure is a live ball and a runner entitled to steal.

Just speculating is all, but the more you force me to think about it the more I'm inclined to believe there is sound logic behind forcing pitchers to take signs <b><i>only</i></b> from a position of contact with the rubber.

Cheers.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Warren Willson
[B]I don't think I want to go there, Warren. There are too many worms in that can.

Roger Greene

Why? Either you accept that the original intent of the rule was to speed up the game or not. If you do, then you need to enforce the intent. Of course there is an amount of sign taking that will go on with the pitcher off the rubber, especially from managers, but generally and practically speaking I have presumed that we are dealing with taking signs from the catcher and that becomes obvious and easily dealt with.

The most common infraction is to see the pitcher keep his pivot foot behind the rubber while leaning in to take his signs from the catcher. That allows him to keep the runners, especially R1, anchored to their bases until he's almost ready to pitch. That's an advantage not intended under the rule, especially if you accept Scott Ehret's explanation of the original intent.

No sensible runner takes even a primary lead until the pitcher is in contact with the rubber. If the pitcher can take signs off the rubber, then step on and only have to ensure that the batter is ready before pitching what recourse does a runner, especially R1, have for being denied his lead off? The obvious consequence is that batters will start requesting time and backing out of the box to force the process back into balance.

For me this is falls into the same category as granting the defense time to throw the ball back to the pitcher in junior ball. It is an attempt to control the pace of the game and gain advantage not intended under the rules. Why shouldn't we look to enforce a rule prohibiting that?

Cheers

I've got no problem with requiring F1 to take (or at least simulate taking) a signal after making contact with the pitcher's plate, but to limit the rule to only allow F1 to take signals there would be too radical for the modern game.

What about the signals from F2 on a R1 and R3 sitch? What about signals for coverage on the bunt? Or coverage at 2nd, or signals from F2 to scramble the pitch signals because of an R2, ect and so on? See, too many worms.

Roger Greene

Ugh! All the talk over this rule?

It's simple - if the pitcher quick-pitches, then enforce that. If the pitcher delays the game, then warn him.

Forget about signs. Forget about where the pitcher's toes are when he takes his signs. You don't need that crap ruining a perfectly good game of baseball.

As far as I can see the rule applies specifically to pitchers. That means your F2 is irrelevant.

My point is that after any dead ball you should require F1 to make contact with the rubber BEFORE taking his signs. Once the ball is put in play I don't care how many signs he takes or from whom. If he subsequently takes his signs from elsewhere, who cares. He has now become liable to be penalised for intentionally delaying the game under OBR 8.05(h). Until he takes the rubber I'm not going to allow a pitcher to dilly dally in the infield, taking signs from anywhere and everywhere he pleases.

Enforcing the rules, in accordance with their intent, ought to be what every umpire aspires to achieve. It is also good game management to keep the game flowing. Considered use of the rule on taking signs is an aid to that objective. I don't see that as opening any cans, worm-laden or otherwise. I also don't see it as over officiating the game, as others evidently do. It is simply ensuring that play proceeds quickly and properly as intended under the rules.

Cheers

If a player is delaying the game, correct them properly.

My problem is over-officiating partners who waste time trying to enforce rules which they have formulated their own interpretations for.

exactly.

...and internet drama is so stupid. some people on here argue the dumbest crap ever.

Agreed. Especially when they argue over whether or not others should be arguing. :D

[Edited by GarthB on Aug 31st, 2003 at 01:07 PM]