Signals off of rubber

[SCREF]

#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.

[harmbu]

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.

[David B]

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

[Boone]

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

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by Boone
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.)

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by SC Ump

Why? Where does it say the pitcher cannot take a sign off the rubber?

OBR 8.01 says, in part,

"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."

I can't find a reference in Evans' Official Baseball Rules Annotated that offers any reason for the restriction except to prevent an illegal Quick Pitch, as David B suggested.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[DownTownTonyBrown]

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).

[pollywolly60]

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.

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.

[Jerry]

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.

[Gee]

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.

[Warren Willson]

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

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.

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]

[Jerry]

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.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jerry
Warren,
Please forgive me! There was no intent whatsoever to belittle my friend from "Down Under".

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.

Originally posted by Jerry
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.

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.

Originally posted by Jerry
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.

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.

Originally posted by Jerry
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.

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]

[SC Ump]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

OBR 8.01 says, in part,

"Pitchers shall take signs from the rubber.... [/B]

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.