Balk? Ball into/out of glove on rubber before set

[DWDIII]

Coach pointed out that the pitcher, while on the rubber but definitely before coming set dumped the ball into the glove or out of the glove to the hand.  He vocalized that it was a balk. I was plate ump but didn’t see it. He didn’t make a big deal, but discussed btwn innings.  A balk? - because the ball was removed from the hand or glove?  Help me out either way please. If I would / should have seen it, should I have balked it?

[Jimurray]

22 minutes ago, DWDIII said:

Coach pointed out that the pitcher, while on the rubber but definitely before coming set dumped the ball into the glove or out of the glove to the hand.  He vocalized that it was a balk. I was plate ump but didn’t see it. He didn’t make a big deal, but discussed btwn innings.  A balk? - because the ball was removed from the hand or glove?  Help me out either way please. If I would / should have seen it, should I have balked it?

In the process of stepping on and getting comfortable on the rubber we would allow some transfer one way or the other. Once you deem the pitcher comfortable, he is only allowed to momentarily adjust the ball in his glove by interps in OBR, rule in NCAA and not in FED although I allow it without any complaints.

[Senor Azul]

Is this what you are asking about?

6.1.3 Situation E:  With R1, F1 receives the ball from F2 and with the feet in set position stance and in contact with the pitcher's plate (a) nervously tosses ball in glove two or three times, or (b) removes the ball from the glove. RULING:  This is a balk in (a) and (b). Restrictions on F1's movements begin when F1 intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate with the pivot foot.

 

[Jimurray]

16 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Is this what you are asking about?

6.1.3 Situation E:  With R1, F1 receives the ball from F2 and with the feet in set position stance and in contact with the pitcher's plate (a) nervously tosses ball in glove two or three times, or (b) removes the ball from the glove. RULING:  This is a balk in (a) and (b). Restrictions on F1's movements begin when F1 intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate with the pivot foot.

 

The key words are "intentionally contacts the pitchers plate". While settling in the pivot foot will be in contact but we but we don't have intentional contact yet.

[DWDIII]

Senor Azul again!, yep.  Thanks I missed that one.  Hate that the coach called it and my field ump didn’t 

we’ll get ‘em next time 

 

 

 

 

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, Jimurray said:

The key words are "intentionally contacts the pitchers plate". While settling in the pivot foot will be in contact but we but we don't have intentional contact yet.

Yep -- an example of "what they say isn't what they mean".  If we took that phrase literally, there'd be a balk nearly every time the pitcher stepped on the rubber:  The most common way is to stand to the side, put the pivot foot in the home in front of the rubber and then move the free foot to s spot in line (about) between the rubber and the plate before looking in for the sign.  That's a step and a balk because the pitcher "intentionally contacted the rubber".

[Velho]

10 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

6.1.3 Situation E:  With R1, F1 receives the ball from F2 and with the feet in set position stance and in contact with the pitcher's plate (a) nervously tosses ball in glove two or three times, or (b) removes the ball from the glove. RULING:  This is a balk in (a) and (b). Restrictions on F1's movements begin when F1 intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate with the pivot foot.

Taking this literally (and why @noumpere says "what they say they don't mean"), how is F1 supposed to move the ball to his pitching after after catching it without "(b) removes the ball from the glove"? Seems like being in the set when catching the ball is the issue and "don't do that", no?

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Taking this literally (and why @noumpere says "what they say they don't mean"), how is F1 supposed to move the ball to his pitching after after catching it without "(b) removes the ball from the glove"? Seems like being in the set when catching the ball is the issue and "don't do that", no?

I can't imagine F1  is ever "in the set" when he catches the ball, and it's not what the case play says.

[Velho]

13 minutes ago, noumpere said:

I can't imagine F1  is ever "in the set" when he catches the ball, and it's not what the case play says.

Ok, I was too precise. The case play says "with the feet in set position stance". So having the feet in set position stance while catching the return throw from F2 is the problem since the case play says you can't remove the ball from the glove if you've caught it while in that position.

Puts Fed umps in a bad spot with coaches that are mostly worried about finding shortcuts to getting an edge.

[noumpere]

23 minutes ago, Velho said:

Ok, I was too precise. The case play says "with the feet in set position stance". So having the feet in set position stance while catching the return throw from F2 is the problem since the case play says you can't remove the ball from the glove if you've caught it while in that position.

Puts Fed umps in a bad spot with coaches that are mostly worried about finding shortcuts to getting an edge.

The case play says:

 

1 hour ago, Velho said:

With R1, F1 receives the ball from F2 and with the feet in set position stance

If the play didn't have the word "and" I'd agree with you.

 

The word implies (to me) that there was a distinction between the two actions of catching the ball and having the feet in the set position.

[Velho]

59 minutes ago, noumpere said:

3 hours ago, Velho said:

With R1, F1 receives the ball from F2 and with the feet in set position stance

If the play didn't have the word "and" I'd agree with you.

 

The word implies (to me) that there was a distinction between the two actions of catching the ball and having the feet in the set position.

I see what you're saying. Thanks. So if F1 gets the ball from F6 he can do those things? 🤣

Comes back to your "what they say they don't mean".

[Richvee]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

The case play says:

 

If the play didn't have the word "and" I'd agree with you.

 

The word implies (to me) that there was a distinction between the two actions of catching the ball and having the feet in the set position.

Wouldn't that be " Receives the ball from F2, then positions his feet in the set position"? 

[noumpere]

14 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Wouldn't that be " Receives the ball from F2, then positions his feet in the set position"? 

That would be better, but "rule books are written by gentlemen for gentlemen, not by lawyers for lawyers."

[Richvee]

I'll stick with this in all levels. From the MiLBUM

Prior to assuming the windup or set position, it is permissible for the pitcher to momentarily adjust the ball in his glove. In order for this to be allowed, the movement must be momentary in nature. If the pitcher has his hands together long enough that, in the judgement of the umpire, it appears that he has actually come to a set position or a windup position, then should the pitcher separate his hands a balk shall be called. 

and

After coming to a legal pitching position, (windup or set), if the pitcher removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch or in throwing to a base it is a balk.

To me, with the set position, a pitcher is not "in a legal pitching position" until he has come set. Therefore, putting the hands together and apart quickly prior to coming set is nothing. 

[The Man in Blue]

"Time!  Catch, go tell your pitcher not to do that while he is touching the pitcher's plate."

Yesterday, I had a kid in contact with the pitcher's plate, ball in hand.  He wipes his nose on the back of his hand with the ball in it.  "Time!  Toss that one in, pitch.  I've got a clean one for you."  (And a Kleenex.)

No rule against going to your nose.  Don't look for reasons to allow stupid little things like this, just "don't do that."

Yes, it is illegal.  Don't try to parse the word "intentional" into something it isn't in an effort to excuse this.  If you don't want to balk him for it (I wouldn't the first time with a kid), just "Time!  Don't do that!"

[Tborze]

8 hours ago, Velho said:

I see what you're saying. Thanks. So if F1 gets the ball from F6 he can do those things? 🤣

Comes back to your "what they say they don't mean".

I first read it as noumpere saw it and then I saw your post.  I went back and agree. Why else add “receives the ball from F2”. That’s not needed unless he was already engaged. 
Personally, I’d wait to see what F1 does next to determine/judge whether he was engaged or not.