Not on rubber yet

[coachbr11]

https://photos.app.goo.gl/44wa8KZxmVHQdLfu9

I've tried to add a photo for reference but I'll explain. 

14u Babe Ruth.  Right handed pitcher walks up mound and stops before and little to side of rubber. Looking at the runner on third who is standing watching just off the base. Pitcher does a little pump fake towards third before going to step on rubber to get sign.  Everyone can see that he isn't on rubber, field umpire right behind mound doesn't say anything. Home umpire calls balk, I explain he isn't on the rubber and doesn't have to step off to fake throw. Umpire says balk on deceiving throwing motion in proximity of rubber. 

[jimurrayalterego]

6 minutes ago, coachbr11 said:

https://photos.app.goo.gl/44wa8KZxmVHQdLfu9

I've tried to add a photo for reference but I'll explain. 

14u Babe Ruth.  Right handed pitcher walks up mound and stops before and little to side of rubber. Looking at the runner on third who is standing watching just off the base. Pitcher does a little pump fake towards third before going to step on rubber to get sign.  Everyone can see that he isn't on rubber, field umpire right behind mound doesn't say anything. Home umpire calls balk, I explain he isn't on the rubber and doesn't have to step off to fake throw. Umpire says balk on deceiving throwing motion in proximity of rubber. 

Umpire has not ever been in proximity to a rule book or clinic. He seems adept at pulling sht out of his hat. (halfway clean anyway)

[coachbr11]

20 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Umpire has not ever been in proximity to a rule book or clinic. He seems adept at pulling sht out of his hat. (halfway clean anyway)

I should add that he said it's because he was in front of the rubber and not behind. I said, I think he was more on the side. When I asked the field umpire he said slightly forward from the side. He was backing the other guy and i have no problem with that. I said, what if he's on mound but close to the grass in front and he said that's ok.

[jimurrayalterego]

22 minutes ago, coachbr11 said:

I should add that he said it's because he was in front of the rubber and not behind. I said, I think he was more on the side. When I asked the field umpire he said slightly forward from the side. He was backing the other guy and i have no problem with that. I said, what if he's on mound but close to the grass in front and he said that's ok.

They don't have a clue how a pitcher gets comfortable while engaging the rubber and is not engaged until the pivot foot is parallel and touching the rubber.

[MadMax]

On 7/12/2026 at 7:26 PM, coachbr11 said:

Umpire says balk on deceiving throwing motion in proximity of rubber.

Not substantiated by rulebook citation or terminology. 

This was called by a (plate) umpire who falls into one of three categories... either: 

A) An elder (in terms of years of experience) umpire, who has never progressed, and has become calloused in his rulebook knowledge, interpretation, and application... 
B) A "younger" (again, in terms of years of experience) umpire, who has not really done "enough" games or gained enough experience to interpret balks "correctly", and whose training has been largely text-based (devoid of illustration / visual examples)... 
C) An umpire who has been over-influenced or directed to "get more __________s" (in this case, balks) by a coordinator / assigner / mentor / "evaluator" who treats such calls as merit badges, or some kind of Pokemon cards to collect. 

[Kevin_K]

There's a 4th category @MadMax.

(In the best David Attenborough voiceover)Perhaps the most pernicious of all umpires is the one who employs the MSU approach. There is no limit to age or or experience level for this most unpredictable of baseball arbiters. Each situation that may challenge the MSU umpire's comfort level is met with an astounding ability to confabulate edicts that have no connection to any rule set, yet satisfy the pressing need to engage in a courtship display with coaches where they are the dominant force that keeps the five game schedule on time for the true king of the jungle - the all powerful tournament director.

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 7/12/2026 at 5:26 PM, coachbr11 said:

Everyone can see that he isn't on rubber, field umpire right behind mound doesn't say anything. Home umpire calls balk, I explain he isn't on the rubber and doesn't have to step off to fake throw. Umpire says balk on deceiving throwing motion in proximity of rubber. 

Another example of why it is so important for coaches/managers to have a decent knowledge of the rules.  If this happened to a coach with adequate rules knowledge, he would have lodged a protest in a heartbeat.

[The Man in Blue]

 

Did EVERYBODY really know the pitcher was not touching the plate?  There are far more fields than not that it is difficult to impossible to tell.  How many fields do you work where there isn't even a real pitcher's plate, just a painted area on thee turf?

If you are going to give the appearance of being there, I am going to assume you are there.  I am not going to play the game of "But he was really 1/2 inch away."

Granted, the PU's response does not help this case.  

Disclaimer: I cannot see the photo linked by the OP.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

Did EVERYBODY really know the pitcher was not touching the plate? 

 

 

You would know if you were aware of how he engaged in the set and the windup, ie: his mannerisms. 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

You would know if you were aware of how he engaged in the set and the windup, ie: his mannerisms. 

 

Maybe I'm missing something.  I am saying from 60 feet and 6 inches away, with him standing on a hill, if he looks like he is touching, he is touching as far as I am concerned.  I'm making that call.  I'm willing to get with my partner afterwards, but I'm not parsing whether he was touching it on a sub-atomic level.

[flyingron]

Note in addition to the other issues, the photo isn't quite right.   The pitcher's plate (rubber) isn't centered on the mound.   It's 12" behind the center point.

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, flyingron said:

Note in addition to the other issues, the photo isn't quite right.   The pitcher's plate (rubber) isn't centered on the mound.   It's 12" behind the center point.

I think he just got a generic pic from the net and is only trying to show the position of F1 in relation to the rubber. But why do you assume a LL mound?

[MadMax]

On 7/12/2026 at 7:26 PM, coachbr11 said:

Right handed pitcher walks up mound and stops before and little to side of rubber. Looking at the runner on third who is standing watching just off the base. Pitcher does a little pump fake towards third before going to step on rubber to get sign. 

Let’s read these elements again… and again… and now mentally picture them in our heads… and then read them again… and one more time… 

… and then ask yourself, and all of us, how is this recreating / imitating / portraying being intentionally or deliberately engaged to the rubber? Just… how??! 

If F1 truly was engaged, why would he… wouldyalookatthat?… be “going to step on (the) rubber to get sign”??? 

It’s a really simple explanation – this was a PU, deficient in either rules knowledge or applied training, who was keyed-up to call a Balk (for any of several reasons). Unfortunately, it’s also an occurrence of “viral umpiring”, because not only is the PU afflicted, but now the BU is, at least, confused or questioning his own rules knowledge, and so are the coaches. 

Call Dustin Hoffman, we have an Outbreak. 

[Mussgrass]

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is a difference between intentionally engaging the rubber, taking signs, and coming set, and merely being in contact with the rubber. What I mean is it is akin to a stepping on a base in an appeal situation. The appeal must be clear and deliberate. There are no accidental appeals, and a pitcher is not subject to the pitching rules just because he happened to brush against the rubber.

[MadMax]

9 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

but there is a difference between intentionally engaging the rubber, taking signs, and coming set, and merely being in contact with the rubber.

Ding ding ding ding! 🛎️ You're on to something (pardon the pun)!! 

10 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

and a pitcher is not subject to the pitching rules yet, just because he happened to brush against the rubber.

I made this one addition, if you please. 

Absent video, I concede, it might be challenging to visualize, but I cannot see why we're giving the PU on this sit a pass for MSU. 💩

[Velho]

33 minutes ago, MadMax said:

48 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

but there is a difference between intentionally engaging the rubber, taking signs, and coming set, and merely being in contact with the rubber.

Ding ding ding ding! 🛎️ You're on to something (pardon the pun)!! 

48 minutes ago, Mussgrass said:

and a pitcher is not subject to the pitching rules yet, just because he happened to brush against the rubber.

I made this one addition, if you please. 

Looking at the rulesets (because this is more interesting than my morning conference call)

 

OBR uses the phrases "while in contact with the pitcher’s plate" and "pitcher, while touching his plate,". It doesn't use "engage" in the manner we seem to be using it (though it does use "disengage" in addressing the pitcher coming off the rubber).

 

NFHS is similar, except for it adds #1 & #2. The OP (sans the PU explanation) has some rule support given #2 (imo):

"When a pitcher is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball or is throwing to a base while the pivot foot is clearly off the pitcher's plate, the pitcher's status is that of an infielder"

"pitcher has engaged the pitcher's plate" is needed put the ball in play.

"in contact with the pitcher's plate"

"Balk. If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a pitcher while the pitcher is touching the pitcher's plate is a balk:"

[jimurrayalterego]

45 minutes ago, Velho said:

Looking at the rulesets (because this is more interesting than my morning conference call)

 

OBR uses the phrases "while in contact with the pitcher’s plate" and "pitcher, while touching his plate,". It doesn't use "engage" in the manner we seem to be using it (though it does use "disengage" in addressing the pitcher coming off the rubber).

 

NFHS is similar, except for it adds #1 & #2. The OP (sans the PU explanation) has some rule support given #2 (imo):

"When a pitcher is attempting to field a batted or thrown ball or is throwing to a base while the pivot foot is clearly off the pitcher's plate, the pitcher's status is that of an infielder"

"pitcher has engaged the pitcher's plate" is needed put the ball in play.

"in contact with the pitcher's plate"

"Balk. If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a pitcher while the pitcher is touching the pitcher's plate is a balk:"

For FED you have to be aware of some caseplay wording but I'll just quote this from the BRD: "IN FED, PITCHING RESTRICTIONS BEGIN WHEN THE PITCHER INTENTIONALLY CONTACTS THE PITCHER"S PLATE. POE 1987, 1988, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009."

For all codes, think about when you would point the ball live. That would be when the pitcher is engaged. 

[Velho]

35 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

"IN FED, PITCHING RESTRICTIONS BEGIN WHEN THE PITCHER INTENTIONALLY CONTACTS THE PITCHER"S PLATE. POE 1987, 1988, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2008, 2009."

Good to hear NFHS expanded and supported a possible reading of their rules that aligns with your second paragraph.

33 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

That would be when the pitcher is engaged

I hear you, and not fighting adjudication but rather pointing out the rule. 

Does OBR have similar interps as NFHS? If not, I'm thinking if you use that as an argument for F1 feint while touching the rubber not being a balk, you may well lose the Protest.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

 

Does OBR have similar interps as NFHS? If not, I'm thinking if you use that as an argument for F1 feint while touching the rubber not being a balk, you may well lose the Protest.

There is no protest in OBR although some leagues using OBR might have added it. I don't know of any OBR guidance other than what we see is allowed as pitchers take the rubber. Basically it would be you know it when you see it. This pitcher was correctly called for a balk. He also had a "start stop" step with his free foot as he got comfortable that we wouldn't call even though he was touching his plate. But you have segued to a more nuanced issue than the OP which clearly had a pitcher near the rubber and not attempting yet to get comfortable.

 

[Vegas_Ump]

The only language I am familiar with is "astride the pitcher's plate" [without the ball].  That may warrant a balk call, but based on what has been described, I just can't see it.  I think the PU may have some confusion on the rule.

 

Mike

Las Vegas