Signals from the rubber

[Tksjewelry]

OBR - pitcher in the stretch taking signs from the coach instead of the catcher - anything?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[maven]

No. Don't be a pioneer.

[Jimurray]

That's a club you don't want to join.

[scrounge]

Anything? An over-controlling coach, but that's about it.

[Tksjewelry]

I was asked by a coach, I didn't remember any rule on it and my book is at home so I thought I'd ask you all.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[maven]

The rule says that F1 shall take his sign from the rubber.

What exactly that means is a matter of some dispute. But it's purpose is to prevent a quick pitch: as long as you don't allow a quick pitch, don't worry about signs.

[Rich Ives]

55 minutes ago, maven said:

The rule says that F1 shall take his sign from the rubber.

What exactly that means is a matter of some dispute. But it's purpose is to prevent a quick pitch: as long as you don't allow a quick pitch, don't worry about signs.

Problem is that the rule says the pitcher must take signs from the catcher while on the rubber.  People stop after "catcher" and think it means the pitcher has to take his signs from the catcher and thus from no one else.

I really wish they would rewrite it to say what it means:   "The pitcher must be in contact with the rubber when taking pitching signs from the catcher". 

[maven]

The problem is that people — coaches, novice umpires (of any "experience" level) — use the rule to gain an advantage or insert themselves into the game, instead of to promote player safety, which is the actual purpose of the rule.

Almost everything we would normally infer from a rule does not in fact follow in this case. Here's the actual FED rule (6-1-1): "He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate."

Does it follow that, if F1 takes a sign from the dugout instead of the catcher, that he has committed an infraction? NO.

Does it follow that, if F1 takes a sign from the catcher while off the rubber (such as F2 setting the defense with R1, R3), that he has committed an infraction? NO.

Does it follow that F1 MUST take a sign from the catcher? NO.

Does it even follow that F1 MUST take a sign? NO.

Does the rule specify any penalty for this alleged "infraction," such as an illegal pitch or a balk? NO.

(We might think that the PENALTY after 6-3 would apply; however, that pertains to an illegal pitch, which requires a pitch. "Illegal signing" — scare quotes to indicate that there's no such thing — does not occur during a pitch. By rule in OBR, there is no penalty for this infraction — see BRD §433 UNPENALIZED INFRACTIONS)

Prediction: no umpire who habitually enforces this provision will advance beyond 10U.

DON'T BE A PIONEER!!!

[umptwo]

Agree wholeheartedly with comments here.  While we're at it, I've also similarly seen LL coaches try to read into 3.09 that pitchers are forbidden from looking into the stands to take signs from a parent, etc..

“3.09 - Players, managers, and coaches of the participating teams shall not address, or mingle with spectators..."

[Mudisfun]

On 4/24/2016 at 10:12 AM, umptwo said:

Agree wholeheartedly with comments here.  While we're at it, I've also similarly seen LL coaches try to read into 3.09 that pitchers are forbidden from looking into the stands to take signs from a parent, etc..

“3.09 - Players, managers, and coaches of the participating teams shall not address, or mingle with spectators..."

Wow... that is a serious stretch. Now I have to read minds.

In this day in age I would be more likely to see F1 receiving signs via text than from the stands.