I just don't get it!

[umpire_scott]

 

My question would be why is it even mentioned in the rules?  Can someone explain to me why they say "don't do it" but don't give any consequence for doing it?  And before someone takes the thread away, I know it actually says "the pitcher shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate".  But clearly the implication is to not allow those signs to be taken when not in contact with the plate.  This is obvious because there is nothing saying they have to take signs at all.

 

I always thought that since it was a violation of the pitching rules, that if a runner is on base then it's a balk.  I've only called it once, and thankfully it was in a league that gave warnings for first offenses, so it did not impact the game.  But I got an agreement nod from my partner and no argument from the coach.  So this is clealry a widely misunderstood rule.  And I blame the writers of the rule book.  If there is no penalty or no instruction on how to handle it, then it's really legal.  So the rule book is flawed in the way it addresses this in my opinion.  That's like posting a speed limit sign, but telling cops you are not allowed to give tickets for people that speed.

 

 

Actually, it doesn't say F1 cannot take signs from off the rubber, it says he "shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate" -- taking signs twice would comply with the plain lanugage.  Seems to me pretty clear that the point is to prevent quick pitches -- if there's no quick pitch, who cares; if there is, deal with the quick pitch.  In practical terms, I supose, if it is a repeat problem wtih QPs, it allows the U to instruct F1 to do it right and eject if he doesn't.  But it's hard to imagine it actually getting there.

 

 

I disagree.  If you are taking it at it's exact wording then the pitcher would HAVE to take signs.  That's ridiculous.  In some lower levels they don't even get signs from the catcher.  So by your definition if a pitcher came to the plate.  Looked over at first base, and then came set without every "taking a sign" he would be violating the rule and I shoudl tell him that he must take a sign?

[BRUMP]

 

because so many umpires still call it, coaches have just assumed its a balk. i guarentee if i call it in a 12u daddy ball game no one says a word to me

 

So did it used to be a balk?  If not then why do so many umpires EVER call it, let alone STILL call it.

 

 

to be honest....idk @mstaylor would know. he knows his balks plus hes been around awhile

[umpire_scott]

 

 

My question would be why is it even mentioned in the rules?  Can someone explain to me why they say "don't do it" but don't give any consequence for doing it?  And before someone takes the thread away, I know it actually says "the pitcher shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate".  But clearly the implication is to not allow those signs to be taken when not in contact with the plate.  This is obvious because there is nothing saying they have to take signs at all.

 

I always thought that since it was a violation of the pitching rules, that if a runner is on base then it's a balk.  I've only called it once, and thankfully it was in a league that gave warnings for first offenses, so it did not impact the game.  But I got an agreement nod from my partner and no argument from the coach.  So this is clealry a widely misunderstood rule.  And I blame the writers of the rule book.  If there is no penalty or no instruction on how to handle it, then it's really legal.  So the rule book is flawed in the way it addresses this in my opinion.  That's like posting a speed limit sign, but telling cops you are not allowed to give tickets for people that speed.

 

 

Actually, it doesn't say F1 cannot take signs from off the rubber, it says he "shall take signs from the catcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate" -- taking signs twice would comply with the plain lanugage.  Seems to me pretty clear that the point is to prevent quick pitches -- if there's no quick pitch, who cares; if there is, deal with the quick pitch.  In practical terms, I supose, if it is a repeat problem wtih QPs, it allows the U to instruct F1 to do it right and eject if he doesn't.  But it's hard to imagine it actually getting there.

 

 

 

For FED and those who have the Simplified & Illustrated (the 'comic book'), it's even worse. For 6.2.5, they actually explicitly say it's a balk. They show a picture of an F1 in customary set position but not on the rubber, looking in. The text says if the pitcher makes any motion customarily associated with his pitch, "including taking signs from the catcher", it's a balk. Given that so many newbies get this book in their initial training, it's no wonder that the context of this is lost on them and this myth persists. Or maybe FED really DOES want this balk called. If so, there's twenty a game then...ugh.

 

 

I don't have that book, but based on what you've said I don't think there is any question the FED considers this a balk.  If that is the case then the question about why so many call it has been answered.  Because in high school IT IS A BALK.  Which explains why I always thought it was a balk.

 

I disagree that there are 20 of them a game.  To me it's a very easy mechanic to teach.  There is no reason to peer in at the catcher with your foot behind the pitching plate.  If you want to look at the runners with your foot behind the plate fine.  But once you are peering in taking signs you need to move that foot to the contact point with the plate.  A quick glance at the catcher is one thing.  But peering in as if you are taking signs is deceptive in my opinion.

[NCAAump2]

I think the whole point of "taking signs while you're on the rubber," is that if the pitcher looks in to "take a sign," he almost can't quick pitch.  Whether he actually takes a sign from the catcher is irrelevant.  He has to make it appear that he is taking signs.  I don't know why this has become so complicated.

[umpire_scott]

I think the whole point of "taking signs while you're on the rubber," is that if the pitcher looks in to "take a sign," he almost can't quick pitch.  Whether he actually takes a sign from the catcher is irrelevant.  He has to make it appear that he is taking signs.  I don't know why this has become so complicated.

 

Well I think it's clear by the FED definition that they consider it a deceptive move to straddle the pitching plate and do anything that is part of the pitching process, including "taking signs".  If a pitchers normal set-up is to look in and take a sign, possible shake off a few signs, then agree on a sign, then come set, and he does the first part of this while straddling the pitching plate it could be deceptive.  I worked at a high school field last week where the pitching plate was chewed up and barely visible by me in "B" or "C".  There was a good chance that the runners would have had great difficulty seeing whether the pitcher was in contact with the plate.

[noumpere]

I think the whole point of "taking signs while you're on the rubber," is that if the pitcher looks in to "take a sign," he almost can't quick pitch.  Whether he actually takes a sign from the catcher is irrelevant.  He has to make it appear that he is taking signs.  I don't know why this has become so complicated.

Here's a play I saw many many years ago.  F1 straddles the rubber and looks in for a sign.  R1 seeing this extends his lead.  F1 now pivots / twists his body but doesn't step toward first and flicks a throw over to fist that catches the runner flat footed.

 

Ruling?

 

I think this is the type of move they are trying to prevent -- in the name of the balance of the game like all the balk rules -- let the runner know whether the pitcher is bound by the pitching rules or the infielder rules.

[LMSANS]

 

I think the whole point of "taking signs while you're on the rubber," is that if the pitcher looks in to "take a sign," he almost can't quick pitch.  Whether he actually takes a sign from the catcher is irrelevant.  He has to make it appear that he is taking signs.  I don't know why this has become so complicated.

Here's a play I saw many many years ago.  F1 straddles the rubber and looks in for a sign.  R1 seeing this extends his lead.  F1 now pivots / twists his body but doesn't step toward first and flicks a throw over to fist that catches the runner flat footed.

 

Ruling?

 

I think this is the type of move they are trying to prevent -- in the name of the balance of the game like all the balk rules -- let the runner know whether the pitcher is bound by the pitching rules or the infielder rules.

 

I have seen F1 straddle, look in at F2, look at R1, put his pivot foot in the appropriate place and look again at F2.  Has a balk occurred?

[umpire_scott]

 

 

I think the whole point of "taking signs while you're on the rubber," is that if the pitcher looks in to "take a sign," he almost can't quick pitch.  Whether he actually takes a sign from the catcher is irrelevant.  He has to make it appear that he is taking signs.  I don't know why this has become so complicated.

Here's a play I saw many many years ago.  F1 straddles the rubber and looks in for a sign.  R1 seeing this extends his lead.  F1 now pivots / twists his body but doesn't step toward first and flicks a throw over to fist that catches the runner flat footed.

 

Ruling?

 

I think this is the type of move they are trying to prevent -- in the name of the balance of the game like all the balk rules -- let the runner know whether the pitcher is bound by the pitching rules or the infielder rules.

 

I have seen F1 straddle, look in at F2, look at R1, put his pivot foot in the appropriate place and look again at F2.  Has a balk occurred?

 

 

In FED I think it would be up to your judgement whether the first look constituted "taking a sign".  A quick glance I would say no.  The only time I ever called it was where the pitcher stood there looking in for several seconds.  He clearly was appearing to take signs.

[HeadHunterLA]

So I have been doing this job for 20+ years and never had a problem with this.  If a pitcher appears to be taking his signs from off or while straddling the rubber I call time between pitches, ask him to please take signs while in contact with the rubber and everything is fine.  

[umpire_scott]

So I have been doing this job for 20+ years and never had a problem with this.  If a pitcher appears to be taking his signs from off or while straddling the rubber I call time between pitches, ask him to please take signs while in contact with the rubber and everything is fine.  

 

Agreed that is how I do it now as well.  But it would appear that a HS school coach could question why you didn't balk the kid.

[NCAAump2]

Because taking signs off the rubber is not a balk.

[mstaylor]

Technically it is a balk in FED, another LCD rules, but I have never seen anybody ever call it. As a BU I will make it a point to get near him and say,"Get on the rubber for your signs, keep both of us out of trouble." The reason pitchers do this is to be able to turn and look at first without balking. Youth coaches don't the rules well enough so they teach them that to stay out of trouble. OBR, nothing.

[NCAAump2]

I know it's "technically" a balk, but that's one booger I'm not going to pick.  I'll say something to F1 if I see him do it, and that should be the end of it.