Jump to content
  • 0

Balk? Must separate hands when stepping off?


Guest Guest Brian
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 1254 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Guest Guest Brian

Hello.  HP Umpire is stating that our pitcher who stepped off the rubber, balked because he did not separate his hands when faking the play to hold the runner at 1st (in the stretch/set position).  I'm not angry and he called it on both teams.  The opposing coaches and our coaches were confused and I've never had this called on us before.  14U with USSSA and MLB rules.  All I can find is a reference to "when the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides"  in the legal pitching delivery definition.  Would that apply to a balk?  Just hoping to learn a little.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recommended Posts

  • 0
5 minutes ago, Guest Guest Brian said:

Hello.  HP Umpire is stating that our pitcher who stepped off the rubber, balked because he did not separate his hands when faking the play to hold the runner at 1st (in the stretch/set position).  I'm not angry and he called it on both teams.  The opposing coaches and our coaches were confused and I've never had this called on us before.  14U with USSSA and MLB rules.  All I can find is a reference to "when the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides"  in the legal pitching delivery definition.  Would that apply to a balk?  Just hoping to learn a little.  Thanks!

So, ... he simply stepped off to get the runner to go back, but didn't separate his hands and said that's a balk?  Just clarifying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Guest Guest Brian
9 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

So, ... he simply stepped off to get the runner to go back, but didn't separate his hands and said that's a balk?  Just clarifying

Yes sir.  Both teams, same thing.  R1 if that matters...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I don't do anything using MLB rules but found this...

 

8.00—The Pitcher.
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 standing on the rubber.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Rule 5.07(a) Comment: Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rub- ber 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 tak- ing each sign.

The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is a runner, or runners, on base it is a balk under Rule 6.02(a); if the bases are unoccupied it is an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
15 minutes ago, aaluck said:

I don't do anything using MLB rules but found this...

 

8.00—The Pitcher.
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 standing on the rubber.

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.

 

5 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Rule 5.07(a) Comment: Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rub- ber 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 tak- ing each sign.

The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is a runner, or runners, on base it is a balk under Rule 6.02(a); if the bases are unoccupied it is an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b). 

The OP already found that rule. The requirement is that the pitcher separate his hands before he reengages. He can’t take the rubber with his hands together in the set position. If you rule literally or actually as required it wouldn’t matter because the penalty is to tell him not to do that. The OP should ask that ump, if he really wants to apply the rule literally, to read the rule and find the balk penalty. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
12 minutes ago, Tborze said:

Rule 5.07(a) Comment: Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rub- ber 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 tak- ing each sign.

The pitcher may not take a second step toward home plate with either foot or otherwise reset his pivot foot in his delivery of the pitch. If there is a runner, or runners, on base it is a balk under Rule 6.02(a); if the bases are unoccupied it is an illegal pitch under Rule 6.02(b). 

Thank you @Tborze mine are obviously older.  Either way it appears to be a balk. So good call I guess...or maybe not according to @Jimurray.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

The OP should ask that ump, if he really wants to apply the rule literally, to read the rule and find the balk penalty. 

Not to bicker but wouldn't the rule read "When a pitcher engages the rubber, his hands must be separated" as opposed to ...

 

4 minutes ago, aaluck said:

When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
7 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Not to bicker but wouldn't the rule read "When a pitcher engages the rubber, his hands must be separated" as opposed to ...

 

 

What code do you call that you would not be aware of the practical requirement to have hands apart when you engage in the set? I say practical because NFHS does not have that wording. But if you allow a pitcher to take the rubber with hands together he will most likely balk with any further movement. In all codes “time, don’t do that”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Thank you [mention=4585]Tborze[/mention] mine are obviously older.  Either way it appears to be a balk. So good call I guess...or maybe not according to [mention=1586]Jimurray[/mention].  
No....its Not a balk.... the rule about having the hands together and or dropping the hands to the side is prior to re-engaging with the rubber. What the original post describes is not a balk of course the Umpire is making all of us look bad by making up rules

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
11 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

No....its Not a balk.... the rule about having the hands together and or dropping the hands to the side is prior to re-engaging with the rubber. What the original post describes is not a balk of course the Umpire is making all of us look bad by making up rules

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

He wasn’t making up a rule. He was applying literally either because he read the book or was told incorrectly and had no good training. I enjoy asking some of the guys I train to find the penalty for that infraction whether the literal infraction or the practical infraction. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I don't do anything under OBR so it doesn't effect me, and it wouldn't be a balk in anything I call.... BUT this is the problem with poorly written rules. Why is it so hard for these folks to clearly state a rule? What does "When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides" have to do with engaging the rubber? In fact, I see nothing in the rules about engaging the rubber and hands.

A new umpire, without the benefit of folks on here, if I read (as I did above) "When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides" the furthest thing from my tiny mind would be "oh so this explains how he must engage the rubber". 

Now, this guy at his game may have gotten it wrong, but I blame that on the rule wording. Someone who has read and retained that rule is not a guy out there "winging it" from what he learned watching TV--he has obviously read (or misread) the rule despite it clearly stating what must be done when disengaging the rubber. If someone said I had to read the book tonight and do a game tomorrow I would have probably made the same call for the same reason and cited THIS rule.

Again, if you both @Jimurray and @Thunderheads say no balk I'm good with that and have nothing to argue there. But to say he is out there making us all look bad "making up rules"? He read it and applied it word-for-word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He wasn’t making up a rule. He was applying literally either because he read the book or was told incorrectly and had no good training. I enjoy asking some of the guys I train to find the penalty for that infraction whether the literal infraction or the practical infraction. 

You beat me too it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I don't do anything under OBR so it doesn't effect me, and it wouldn't be a balk in anything I call.... BUT this is the problem with poorly written rules. Why is it so hard for these folks to clearly state a rule? What does "When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides" have to do with engaging the rubber? In fact, I see nothing in the rules about engaging the rubber and hands.
A new umpire, without the benefit of folks on here, if I read (as I did above) "When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides" the furthest thing from my tiny mind would be "oh so this explains how he must engage the rubber". 
Now, this guy at his game may have gotten it wrong, but I blame that on the rule wording. Someone who has read and retained that rule is not a guy out there "winging it" from what he learned watching TV--he has obviously read (or misread) the rule despite it clearly stating what must be done when disengaging the rubber. If someone said I had to read the book tonight and do a game tomorrow I would have probably made the same call for the same reason and cited THIS rule.
Again, if you both [mention=1586]Jimurray[/mention] and [mention=969]Thunderheads[/mention] say no balk I'm good with that and have nothing to argue there. But to say he is out there making us all look bad "making up rules"? He read it and applied it word-for-word.
It doesn't say it's a balk does it?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
8 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

It doesn't say it's a balk does it?

It's a violation (if it were as it is written). And a pitching violation with a man on base is usually a balk. Otherwise, do we just tell him as many times as necessary to stop doing it?

If its not a violation then why even write it down? Rhetorical question, they obviously just write stuff and expect folks to know its not as it reads.

This really irritates me. Looks like this guy is trying to get it right by actually reading and learning the rules.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
It's a violation (if it were as it is written). And a pitching violation with a man on base is usually a balk. Otherwise, do we just tell him as many times as necessary to stop doing it?
If its not a violation then why even write it down? Rhetorical question, they obviously just write stuff and expect folks to know its not as it reads.
This really irritates me. Looks like this guy is trying to get it right by actually reading and learning the rules.
That's all well and good. I read what was posted and didn't get the feel that there's an implied balk within....

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
10 minutes ago, aaluck said:

It's a violation (if it were as it is written). And a pitching violation with a man on base is usually a balk. Otherwise, do we just tell him as many times as necessary to stop doing it?

If its not a violation then why even write it down? Rhetorical question, they obviously just write stuff and expect folks to know its not as it reads.

This really irritates me. Looks like this guy is trying to get it right by actually reading and learning the rules.

Yes, it's a violation -- the penalty for which is "don't do that" (and if someone repeatedly fails to "don't do that" I suppose he could be ejected.)  You can find words to this effect in many of the guidelines / interps -- JR, JEA, etc.

 

The whole rule is part of the balance / dance between batter / runner  and pitcher.

 

It's clear enough to those who work professional baseball, and that's who the rules are written for.  The rest of us just "borrow" those rules (see somewhere in the introductory section).  Complaints about the way the rules are written, especially in OBR are just windmill tilting.  Heck, Evans identified 123 (or whatever) problems with the rules and he likely had more sway in getting them changed than all of us combined.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
4 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I read what was posted and didn't get the feel that there's an implied balk within....

I agree it appears to be just an empty rule, that should not be enforced, as the OP ump did.

Which is why my question to you and @Jimurray is, why even write this down in the rule book? It has nothing to do with engaging the rubber, as it CLEARLY states it ONLY applies to disengaging the rubber and it appears to give no penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
I agree it appears to be just an empty rule, that should not be enforced, as the OP ump did.
Which is why my question to you and [mention=1586]Jimurray[/mention] is, why even write this down in the rule book? It has nothing to do with engaging the rubber, as it CLEARLY states it ONLY applies to disengaging the rubber and it appears to give no penalty. 
Okay and that is my point,... if it doesn't give clear direction that this is a balk then why was it called? That's all I'm saying

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
Just now, aaluck said:

I agree it appears to be just an empty rule, that should not be enforced, as the OP ump did.

Which is why my question to you and @Jimurray is, why even write this down in the rule book? It has nothing to do with engaging the rubber, as it CLEARLY states it ONLY applies to disengaging the rubber and it appears to give no penalty. 

It is enforced with a do not do that and ejection if repeated. But in your codes what would you do if the pitcher took the rubber with hands together?  Unless he was a statue any stretch or look in to the catcher would be a balk. 
Jeff Nelson ejected a MLB pitcher who argued his do not do that warning about one hand at his side. Another pitching restriction that has no penalty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, noumpere said:

The whole rule is part of the balance / dance between batter / runner  and pitcher.

and that's the problem. If a pitcher is standing with his pivot foot just behind the rubber (after stepping off without the runner seeing that) with his hands together how in the world is the runner to know he is off the rubber? From there he can snap throw. Most of these fields the rubber is the same color as the dirt and I cannot sometimes tell if he's on or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

But in your codes what would you do if the pitcher took the rubber with hands together?

Im 100% in agreement with you on that but to beat the heck out of this dead horse this rule DOES NOT say ANYTHING about ENGAGING THE RUBBER. The word engaging does not appear in the sentence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
1 minute ago, aaluck said:

and that's the problem. If a pitcher is standing with his pivot foot just behind the rubber (after stepping off without the runner seeing that) with his hands together how in the world is the runner to know he is off the rubber? From there he can snap throw. Most of these fields the rubber is the same color as the dirt and I cannot sometimes tell if he's on or not.

He and his coach would see the step off. But your code doesn’t have that rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

This is a commonly misunderstood provision. Those without additional resources make the same inferential leap as the umpire mentioned in the OP (and some here), that any violation by a pitcher results in a balk with runners on. Not so.

There's a rhythm to the dance, as noumpere suggestively calls it: F1 engages, R1 leads off, F1 comes set and... pitches or picks or disengages. The rulesmakers decided to keep that rhythm intact by requiring F1 to separate his hands after disengaging. 

But it's false that the penalty is a balk as has been said. Like taking signs off the rubber, it's a "don't do that." If we see it, we should kill it and say exactly that.

Notice that balks occur during the dance (or faking it); these violations occur during the preliminaries.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

But if you notice there is no "time limit" on when he has to separate his hands. Know the rule, know the  intent/spirit of the rule, and know how to apply it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

Mr. maven, the text about a pitcher being required to separate his hands upon disengaging the rubber was not even in the rule book until 1976. It only appeared in the Notes—Case Book—Comment section at the back of the rule book on page 105 and even then it did not have a penalty for the infraction. Here’s how it appeared in the 1976 Notes—Case Book—Comment section—

8.01  Pitchers must take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber. Signs shall not be taken while the pitcher is straddling or standing behind 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 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. This will defeat the purpose of Official Baseball Rule 8.01 which was put into the rules to establish uniformity in taking signs while on the rubber in all professional leagues.

 

In the 1978 OBR book it states in the front matter, “The Official Playing Rules Committee at its December 1977 meeting, voted to incorporate the Notes—Case Book—Comments section directly into the Official Playing Rules at the appropriate places.”

And this is what that comment looked like when it was moved to rule 8.01 in the 1978 rule book—

“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…”

So, I am reasonably sure that the instruction to pitchers to separate their hands upon disengaging the rubber has more to do with avoiding quick pitches than it does with dancing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...