#1. Does anyone know the origin or reason for the pitcher having to take his signals from the catcher while standing on the rubber. #2. What's the penalty? It's obviously not a balk (or illegal pitch), because the pitcher is not under pitching regulations and there is no deception.

Possible reasoning
 

I have always felt that the reason for this rule was that baserunners are usually instructed to take their lead after the pitcher gets on the rubber. If the pitcher takes his sign first, and then gets on, the runner would not always be able to get a lead. This is the only logical reason I can think of.

Quick Pitch
 

Its to prevent the quick pitch.

If F1 could take them anywhere, he could step on the rubber at anytime and legally pitch the ball.

I don't know the exact origins, I'm sure there are guys who do, but the essence of the rule is to allow the batter (and the runner too) to know what's coming next.

Thanks
David

No penalty. just a stern "Get on the rubber, sign-taker!"

Why? Where does it say the pitcher cannot take a sign off the rubber? The only thing I'm aware of is that they must take (or simulate taking) a sign from the rubber. Before they get on the rubber, I don't know rules that state they can't take signs. Does anyone know of any?

As fare as I'm concerned, if they want to take signs off the rubber there is no problem as long as they take another sign once they are on the rubber. If they don't take one on the rubber, then it can be a quick pitch. If they take too many off the rubber, then I'm going to tell them to quit slowing down my game. (I know it is not really my game, but in this case, it gets the point across that you are not going to put up with excessive delays.)

OBR 8.01 says, in part,<ul>"Pitchers shall take signs from the rubber. Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rubber and pitch. This may be judged as a quick pitch by the umpire...Pitchers will not be allowed to disengage the rubber after taking each sign."</ul>I can't find a reference in Evans' <i>Official Baseball Rules Annotated</i> that offers any reason for the restriction except to prevent an illegal Quick Pitch, as David B suggested.

Hope this helps

Cheers

That other ballgame on a diamond
 

The reason is more obvious in fast pitch softball.

Taking signs from the rubber makes the pitcher stop on the rubber rather than taking his sign from the back of the mound and then walking onto the rubber and carrying that momentum of his approach into the delivery of his pitch.

In baseball it has got to be similar and also that it allows the batter to get prepared for the imminent delivery (prevents the quick pitch).

So what is the penalty for a quick pitch in baseball? I believe in fastpitch we simply rule "no - pitch" with a warning to pitcher. Not sure about penalty if it continues after that.

Signals off of rubber
 

The penalty for a quick pitch with no runners is a ball. With runners it's a balk. The penalty for taking signs off the rubber is a " Don't do that" in OBR and a balk in Fed.

There's an excellent article posted by Scott Ehret which explains the entire concept. Scott, as you may recall, has been a rules interpreter for Referee Magazine and NASO for many years . . . and is highly respected in the area of "common sense" officiating.

http://www.amateurumpire.com/mech/mech08.htm

Warren . . . I'm surprised you weren't familiar with this article. It was written during the time when Papa was involved with NASO.

I don't think it was there to stop the quick pitch because after the pitcher has taken his signs, if he does, he can then step off. I'm sure that when he steps back on, he is not required to take his signs again.

The rule probably came from the old rules when the BATTER "signaled" the pitcher where he wanted the ball to be pitched. G.

Huh? I fail to see the connection, Jerry. I am acquainted with Carl Childress so I should remember every article ever published by Scott Ehret? No disrespect intended, but I don't see how one thing logically follows the other. I have read some - not all - of Scott's work. I couldn't say whether he has read any of mine, even though we both contribute to Officiating.com from time to time. I doubt either of us has read all of Carl's work! We're both still way too young for that. :D

Through your linked reference I was surprised to learn that I am also acquainted with the correspondent who submitted the original question answered by Mr Ehret. The good doctor and I were both members of the UmpiresTalk listserv for some time. Still, that knowledge offers absolutely no logical connection to my lack of familiarity with the response that his question sparked. Rich Fronheiser, GarthB, David B, and HHH (Peter Osborne) were all members of [UT] around then too. I doubt any of them knew of, or would have remembered, either Dr Seigel's inciting question or the Ehret response. Another former [UT] member, amateurumpire.com webmaster Brent McLaren, would certainly have remembered the article ... but he seldom posts here these days.

FWIW, in my reply I only said that I couldn't find a reference in Evans. I didn't look any further. I was quite satisfied that the original questions had already been answered. That said I found Mr Ehret's contribution, that the provision was originally introduced as a speed up rule, most enlightening. Thank you for helping me to learn something new today, Jerry.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Aug 28th, 2003 at 08:25 AM]

Warren,
Please forgive me! There was no intent whatsoever to belittle my friend from "Down Under". The only connection I was hinting at, was that Jim Evans is not the only "authority" on the subject. Discussions by other reputable and recognized interpreters also exist. Scott's article, as an example. Perhaps Evans deemed the situation a "no brainer" that needed no clarification or explanation.

Since you are familiar with both Carl and Scott at the professional level, I thought perhaps you would have read/seen that article in "Referee" magazine from several years ago . . . and perhaps forgot all about it. That's all.

Another point I wanted to make, but didn't; too many amateur coaches and officials read something in the rule book and immediately jump to the conclusion that it's an infraction. Knowing the history of a rule makes it much easier to properly administer any penalties that should/could be invoked. Scott's article is a good case in point. As are many of your insights and discussions on this and other boards.

Peace.

No forgiveness necessary, Jerry. I wasn't offended, only genuinely puzzled. I knew that the connection was there from your point of view. I just couldn't see it is all. I didn't mean to imply that you may have been taking a shot at me. Sorry if that was how my reply came across.

Absolutely true on all counts. I usually go to Evans first because his format makes it easier to glean the historical information quickly. That certainly doesn't mean that Evans is the only reliable or useful source on the subject.

Given the state of my memory these days, that's not an impossible proposition. I have never subscribed to "Referee" magazine, or acquired any of Carl's books other than the BRD, and I guess that would be my loss. Instead I used to subscribe to Baseball Digest especially to get Rich Marazzi's "Baseball Rules Corner". He often covered the history of rule changes in a practical way, referring to the original incidents that sparked them. Being so far away, my options were more limited back then.

Thank you for the compliment, Jerry. I agree, having once been one of those conclusion-jumping amateur officials in my rookie years (and yes, I do mean that I had more than one rookie year ;)). I have previously admitted publicly to misinterpreting 4.03(d) a long time ago. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I was certainly no different in that regard. I'm still learning, most recently courtesy of your unearthing of Scott's article. Thanks for that.

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Aug 28th, 2003 at 05:46 PM]

Exactly my point. So if the pitcher takes signs from off the rubber and then gets on the rubber and takes more signs from the rubber, hasn't the pitcher fulfilled 8.01 by taking the signs from the rubber. The fact that he took signs from off the rubber, too, is not a violation in my opinion, as long as once he is on the rubber he takes signs there as well.

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]