Register or Sign In to remove these ads
Tksjewelry

Appeal able?

15 posts in this topic

Had this question from a coach today. I've had the same 5 11u teams for 4 days. Day one, kid is taking the signs off the rubber. I tell him he has to be on the rubber to take his signs, coach walks to the line and says "that's a balk right?" "no coach" we continue play. After the inning same coach asks if that's not at all a balk or if it's not an age appropriate balk, I tell him it's not at all a balk, it's a don't do that. So today, after the championship same coach asks me if that erroneous balk is called on his team, would that call be appealable. I told him I believed that it would be as its really a rule interpretation not a judgement call but I wasn't absolutely positive. Was I right?

 

Ps, these 5 11u AA ball players, coaches, and fans, we're the most respectful and positive groups I've ever umpired. For a Utrip worlds, it was a pleasure doing these games even in the 100 degree plus cook house of fields.

 

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Register or Sign In to remove these ads

I agree with you, it's a mistake of rules interpretation.   Since this is a tournament, (and post game? ) then his best bet would be to speak to the TD about it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you, it's a mistake of rules interpretation.   Since this is a tournament, (and post game? ) then his best bet would be to speak to the TD about it. 


It was a hypothetical question.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall that FED wants it balked and NCAA wants it called a ball (perhaps after a warning) (and. I admit that I'm doing something that I hate when other people do it -- posting without taking the time to look something up when I'm not sure -- apologies in advance).  Many areas / organizations ignore that and treat it as FED.  And, ther is always the whole debate about "what's a sign"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OBR

Quote

5.07 (8.00) Pitching (a) (8.01) Legal Pitching Delivery There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time. Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher’s plate.

Rule 5.07(a) Comment (Rule 8.01 Comment): Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rubber and pitch. This may be judged a quick pitch by the umpire. When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides. Pitchers will not be allowed to disengage the rubber after taking each sign.

I don't see anything that would make this a balk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the 2016 BRD (section 416, p. 279):

FED:  The pitcher must take his sign from the “catcher” while on the pitcher’s plate. (6-1-1) PENALTY:  ball/balk. (6-1-1 Pen)

NCAA:  Same as FED, EXCEPT:  PENALTY:  ball. (7-5d)

OBR:  The pitcher must take his sign from the catcher while on the pitcher’s plate. PENALTY: NONE LISTED. (5.07a)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This rule was added to prevent quick pitches, if there isn't a quick pitch issue, I'd never bring up taking signs off the rubber.
2. If the OHC brought up the issue, and there are no quick pitch issues, I'd use the "is he REALLY getting a sign off the rubber" position and send OHC back to the dugout with an understanding that we're not going to delay the game further for this issue.
3. If there is a quick pitch issue associated with not taking signs from the rubber (never have seen it), then rule is to be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not asking WHAT the rule is, asking if it's erroneously enforced (OBR), is it appealable?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Tksjewelry said:

Not asking WHAT the rule is, asking if it's erroneously enforced (OBR), is it appealable?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 

This is (apparently) a rule that's misapplied.  What does (should) the coach do when any rule is misapplied?  (Rhetorical)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ricka56 said:

1. This rule was added to prevent quick pitches,

This rule was added for uniformity. QP had nothing to do with it. QPs are already covered elsewhere. The AL used to require  the pitcher to be in contact while the NL did not.  Voila - a rule to make it the same in both.

(Some of us are old enough to remember those gays)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Rich Ives said:

This rule was added for uniformity. QP had nothing to do with it. QPs are already covered elsewhere. The AL used to require  the pitcher to be in contact while the NL did not.  Voila - a rule to make it the same in both.

(Some of us are old enough to remember those gays)

Why did the AL require F1 in contact originally ? ...to prevent quick pitching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

Why did the AL require F1 in contact originally ? ...to prevent quick pitching.

How does this rule prevent quick pitching? (Serious question -- I just don't understand it)

Edit:  So, I just re-read Evans on this.  It appears to me, that the rule really is saying "once the pitcher engages the rubber, he must (pause to) take signs from the catcher."  It's this action (the pause) that prevents the quick pitch action of stepping on the rubber and then delivering almost in one motion.  IOW, our emphasis on "taking signs while off the rubber" is backwards -- as long as the pitcher "again" takes (or pretends to take) signs once engaging -- that's what prevents the quick pitch.

 

here's the Evan's quote:

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not
step quickly onto the rubber and pitch. This may be judged a quick pitch by the umpire. When the pitcher
disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides. Pitchers will not be allowed to disengage the rubber
after taking each sign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ricka56 said:

Why did the AL require F1 in contact originally ? ...to prevent quick pitching.

There's already a quick pitch rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, noumpere said:

IOW, our emphasis on "taking signs while off the rubber" is backwards -- as long as the pitcher "again" takes (or pretends to take) signs once engaging -- that's what prevents the quick pitch.

Exactly, the rule doesn't say that F1 is prohibited from getting any sign/signal from F2 (or anyone) when not engaged. The rule says that F1 takes sign from the rubber (not the same thing). If you are calling an illegal pitch ball/balk with F1 off the rubber (in Fed), you have ruled a violation before F1 has a chance to satisfy his obligation (when he engages the rubber).

Once F1 engages, looks towards F2 who may or may not make a "discernible sign", and there is no quick pitch issue, the "taking signs from the rubber" obligation is satisfied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not appealable but protestable. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now