I have heard so many different answers to this question: Is it a balk if runners are on base and the pitcher is receiving his signs (from catcher) while NOT in contact with the pitcher's plate?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Meff posted:I have heard so many different answers to this question: Is it a balk if runners are on base and the pitcher is receiving his signs (from catcher) while NOT in contact with the pitcher's plate?
Yes. Federation rule 6.1.1 requires the pitcher to receive his signs from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate.
You know what's embarrassing? When you think this rule also applies in softball, you call a girl out on it from the other team and then the ump tells you that's not the case in softball. Just find your bucket and sit down on it.
Swampboy posted:Yes. Federation rule 6.1.1 requires the pitcher to receive his signs from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate.
That might be what the FED wants, but it's not logically consistent with the wording of the rule. I can't find any specific case plays on this, although I do recall a test question from quite a few years ago (and I don't have that handy).
And, generally, the rules list what is NOT allowed -- if it's not prohibited, then it's legal.
The actual wording of the rule in 6-1-1 (not 6.1.1 -- the dots indicate a case reference) is "He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate."
So, for example, if he takes a sign off the rubber, and then takes a sign while on the rubber -- that meets the requirement.
In the end, then, this might be a local interpretation -- if the others in your area call it, then call it. If not, you don't want to be the only one doing so.
Noumpere,
I respectfully disagree.
Grammatically, it is an implied conditional.
"He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate" doesn't actually require the pitcher to take signs from the catcher, does it?
I mean, we'd never balk a guy for assuming a set position, stretching, coming to a stop, and pitching without ever looking for a sign, would we?
Of course not. It's not a commandment. It's a conditional. The sentence imposes a condition for those occasions when the pitcher does take a sign from the catcher.
If I tell my dog, "Thou shalt poop in the woods," and he then poops both in the woods and on the porch, has he complied with my instruction? Will my awareness of fresh poop in the woods cause me to ignore the poop on the porch?
Am I supposed to accept, "But I also pooped in the woods" as a valid defense for pooping on the porch?
There's also the question of timing. If it is permissible for the pitcher to take signs while not in contact with the pitcher's plate as long as he later takes signs while in contact with it, when would we balk him up if he later failed to do so?
When he starts his motion? If so, it would be the only balk move that could be voided by subsequent action.
Your interpretation makes the rule meaningless and unenforceable.
But the rule does have meaning, and it should be enforced.
It exists to prohibit pitchers from gaining an unfair advantage as they try to hold runners while taking signs. If they were permitted to take signs while not in contact with the pitching plate, then they would be able to make any kind of throw or feint with or without stepping toward the base.
As a practical matter, I've never seen it happen above 14U,
Since the OP didn't specify the rule set - it should be mentioned that this is not a balk in OBR.
In FED it's a semantics thing. The pitcher is supposed to take his signs from the catcher from the rubber.
The rule doesn't specifically say he can't receive signs from someone else as well.
It's not like you would call a balk if he wasn't on the rubber - but the catcher was standing up giving defensive signals. Strict interpretation would be to call that a balk. Ridiculous of course, and not what the rule is intended for. He did receive a sign though - and he wasn't on the rubber...
The intent of the rule is to prevent the pitcher from getting a sign off the rubber, then stepping on and going immediately into his pitching motion. As long as he steps onto the rubber, takes a sign from the catcher and then goes into his motion, I'm happy.
If a coach wants to complain, I'll explain to him the can of worms he is preparing to open up. I'm sure he doesn't want me deciding if every hand motion he or his catcher make is a "sign".
Rob T,
I agree with most of what you said.
I agree that it's not carefully worded and it would be wrong to call a balk on the pitcher if he didn't happen to be on the pitcher's plate while the catcher was making defensive calls.
However, I think the purpose is more than simply preventing the rapid delivery you described. I think the reason this rule is in 6-1 instead of later in rule 6 under illegal actions is to establish that looking in for signs is inherently part of the act of pitching. Therefore, it must be done in compliance with the rules about legal pitching positions and movements.
The runner is entitled to take his measure of the pitcher while the pitcher looks in for the sign.
Looking in for a sign while not engaged with the plate prevents the runner from taking and adjusting his lead. It keeps him from getting all the subtle information he would normally get from reading a pitcher's pre-pitch movements.
I call this a balk as soon as I see the pitcher perform the pre-pitch action of looking in for a sign while not engaged with the plate because that is when the pitcher gains an unfair advantage over the runner. Subsequent action can't undo the unfair advantage.
I've never seen it in a scholastic game. It is generally a move attempted by inexperienced pitchers who haven't learned to control runners legally.
This is NOT a balk. The rule has been quoted above. What you don't find in the rule is a penalty for doing it.
Swampboy-
I agree with what you are saying - the pitcher has to follow the "procedure".
It's a have to be there kind of thing. Too many variables to document here really.
I've never had it be an issue above youth ball where the manager wants to display his knowledge...
(Thankfully that's all OBR here)
NorthTXUmp posted:This is NOT a balk. The rule has been quoted above. What you don't find in the rule is a penalty for doing it.
Penalties for violating 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3 are listed at the end of 6-1-3.
Swampboy posted:NorthTXUmp posted:This is NOT a balk. The rule has been quoted above. What you don't find in the rule is a penalty for doing it.
Penalties for violating 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3 are listed at the end of 6-1-3.
No. Penalties for illegal pitches listed in those three sections are. This is not an illegal pitch.
Matt13 posted:Swampboy posted:NorthTXUmp posted:This is NOT a balk. The rule has been quoted above. What you don't find in the rule is a penalty for doing it.
Penalties for violating 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3 are listed at the end of 6-1-3.
No. Penalties for illegal pitches listed in those three sections are. This is not an illegal pitch.
"If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball."
It's not an illegal pitch because it's not a pitch. The umpire is obliged to signal dead ball when it occurs (which is another reason you can't let it go and see if some subsequent action cancels it out).
Matt13 posted:
Swampboy posted:
NorthTXUmp posted:
This is NOT a balk. The rule has been quoted above. What you don't find in the rule is a penalty for doing it.
Penalties for violating 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3 are listed at the end of 6-1-3.
No. Penalties for illegal pitches listed in those three sections are. This is not an illegal pitch.
"ART. 1 . . . The pitcher shall pitch while facing the batter from either a windup position (Art. 2) or a set position (Art 3). The position of his feet determine whether he will pitch from the windup or the set position. He shall take his sign from the catcher with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate. The pitching regulations begin when he intentionally contacts the pitcher's plate."
"PENALTY (Art. 1, 2, 3): The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter. If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball."
*Definition of SHALL:
"auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person shall, 2nd shall or (Archaic) shalt, 3rd shall, present plural shall; past singular 1st person should, 2nd should or (Archaic) shouldst or shouldest, 3rd should, past plural should; imperative, infinitive, and participles lacking.
1.
plan to, intend to, or expect to:
I shall go later.
2.
will have to, is determined to, or definitely will:
You shall do it. He shall do it.
3.
(in laws, directives, etc.) must; is or are obliged to:
The meetings of the council shall be public."
"Related words include should, will, must and advise."
"Shall is usually followed by an infinitive without “to”: I shall explain everything later. Sometimes it is used without a following infinitive: ♦ I have never visited Africa and probably never shall.
Shall does not change its form, so the third person singular form does not end in “-s”: The President shall appoint all ambassadors with the consent of the Senate.
Questions and negatives are formed without “do”: Shall I come with you?
The negative form shall not can be shortened in conversation or informal writing to shan’t, especially in British English.
Shall has no participles and no infinitive form. In British English, shall can be used for forming the future tense of another verb when the subject is “I” or “we,” but it does not have a future tense of its own: We shall see you tomorrow.
Should can sometimes be used as the past tense of shall, for example, in indirect speech introduced by a verb in the past tense: I hoped that I should not need to defend myself."
"SHALL is also used in instructions and legal documents for saying that something must be done.
Example Sentence: The Court shall have authority to demand the presence of witnesses."
AND
"SHALL is used for emphasizing that you are determined that something will definitely happen.
Example Sentence: You shall receive all the money that is owed to you."
I hope this helps, guys.......IT SHOULD!!
Modal verbs:
can, cannot, could...
Sorry about the spacing!! That's not how I typed it, but it's all there. I have no idea why it appeared this way because it's certainly NOT how I had it. Oh well.....hope it (still) helps, even if it's just a little bit. 
Thanks for all of your feedback. I say that because I was the one who posted this topic. I didn't think there would be many replies, but I'm glad I was wrong about that. Thank you for everyone that commented on this scenario. I appreciate it!
Thanks for all of your feedback. I say that because I was the one who posted this topic. I didn't think there would be many replies, but I'm glad I was wrong about that. Thank you for everyone that commented on this scenario. I appreciate it!
I shall be very interested to see if a consensus is reached.
I begin my reply with quoting from the rules book..... "ART. 1 . . . The pitcher shall pitch while facing the batter...... and so on............. AGAIN, I apologize about the spacing. I have no clue why it did that.
Swampboy posted:Matt13 posted:Swampboy posted:NorthTXUmp posted:This is NOT a balk. The rule has been quoted above. What you don't find in the rule is a penalty for doing it.
Penalties for violating 6-1-1, 6-1-2 and 6-1-3 are listed at the end of 6-1-3.
No. Penalties for illegal pitches listed in those three sections are. This is not an illegal pitch.
"If there is a runner, such illegal act is a balk. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball."
It's not an illegal pitch because it's not a pitch. The umpire is obliged to signal dead ball when it occurs (which is another reason you can't let it go and see if some subsequent action cancels it out).
If you quote the whole penalty, "such illegal act" refers to illegal pitches in the sentence before.
This is nothing. It's to prevent quick pitching. If he takes signs before stepping on, engages, then immediately pitches, it's an illegal pitch--but not due to the fact he took his signs off the rubber; it's because he quick-pitched.
JCG- Me too!! LMAO!
Matt13- I agree. All I did was a lot of copying & pasting......Obviously.
Meff posted:Matt13- I agree. All I did was a lot of copying & pasting......Obviously.
I would offer this suggestion...sometimes the wording in the rulebook is intentional, other times it's very sloppy--both in FED and OBR. That's why we rely on interpretations and the casebooks to fill in the gaps and elucidate what is intended by rule. If we try to apply rules of English to some of the things that are said, we are going to find things that aren't there.
If you ever do NCAA, though, I would say that their wording is very intentional, and any ambiguities that arise are generally fixed in the next version.