umpire_scott

A lot of umpires confuse the CI and balk rules. CI gives the coach the choice this balk does not. But 99% of coaches are going to take the result of the play (since all runners and the batter are advancing) and ignore the balk, so it never gets pointed out.

We use OBR rules. And I don't believe the Wendelstedt interp listed is relevant. Runners who steal on ball 4 are also entitled to the base. I need the interp about balks and runners stealing not CI and runners stealing.

So I had a situation a few years ago where R2 was stealing on the play (no other runners), pitcher balks and it is ball 4 on the batter. I thought that since the BR advanced on ball 4 and R2 advanced on the steal that the balk would not be enforced. But an experienced umpire told me that actually that situation was covered in an interpretations manual and because R2 stealing was independent of the pitched ball that the balk would be enforced. Basically the interpretation being that BR and all runners had to advance as a result of the pitch. So our UIC sent around a rules test in preparation or our upcoming clinics. In the sitch he sent around it was all the same except instead of it being ball 4 it was catcher's interference. To me since in CI R2 would not get third base, unless he successfully completed the steal these two scenarios are exactly the same. Yet our rules test answer said that the balk would not be enforced because BR and all runners advanced a base.

Agreed. I didn't think it was a balk.

I think what made it peculiar looking was the sloppiness and methodical nature of the move. The kid was very slow in going from moving his pivot foot to then stepping towards first. It just looked funky.

Was doing a 10U select tourney over the weekend. Had a kid do something peculiar on the mound (what a shock). In attempting a pick off to first base he slid his pivot foot slightly forward and slightly towards third base then turned his body and stepped towards first base to throw. As it was 10U we did not balk it. My partner and I talked about it afterwards. I was not sure it was a balk. He indicated it was because his first move was with his pivot foot and it wasn't backwards off the pitching plate. (A) Is this accurate? (B) what rule verbiage supports this? I looked in 2018 OBR handbook and could not find verbiage to support this. I thought it looked clunky and sloppy, but wasn't sure that it was a balk.

So in my case F3 never contacted BR. The throw came in high and wide and BR kind of ducked to avoid F3 and the ball. In ducking he lost his balance and lunged forward a little and his back foot came off the bag. It was a strange play in that by what I saw he was not planning on running through the base, he was planning on stopping at the base. He had slowed down to do so. But when he noticed F9 throwing to F3 he ducked to get out of the way of the throw and this caused him to come off the back of the base. I guess I was asking if he gets any extra protection being that he is able to overrun first base.

12U baseball. Ball hit to right field. BR running down the line sees it will be an easy base hit slows up as if to stop at the base. The RF throws to first and the throw pulls F3 off the base and causes BR to lose his balance so he touches the base and then stumbles forward off of it. At what point is he liable to be put out for coming off the base versus legally overrunning it?

So normally with R2 doesn't PU have the touch at third for example if the play had been at first rather than a tag up the line? I ask because I have run into this before when I was in C and a dribbler was hit down the first base line. I went towards the working area to get a good look at a play at first. Well my PU, partner went up the line as well, and before I noticed and turned around there was a collision rounding third between R2 and F5. Neither of us saw it as we both went towards the play at first. We talked about it later and I pregame now that 1/2 way up the line PU has tag and after that BU has it. Do any of you do anything different to avoid that SH*# sandwich?

So clearly this is a judgement call on whether the umpire would consider it preparatory or not. Even though he was deliberate in his motions and did look in, since he was not taking a sign, and he paused for a long time after switching hands, I considered it preparatory.

FWIW in my situation in the OP, the opposing HC, who was at 3rd base questioned the non-call of the balk. He called time and went to my partner behind the plate. I was not in earshot to hear what was said. My partner then said that the coach could come talk to me if he wanted to. The coach came out and said "you know that is a balk when they switch hands like that". I explained I felt it fell under "momentary adjustment while getting settled". He mumbled something about that being a balk every time in high school. We played on. He made some snide comments about it while warming his pitcher up the next inning, but we moved past it. Then later in the game, because this was now in the pitchers head about not being able to switch hands, he switched hands and then switched back, while engaged with the plate. At this point I balked it. As for it not creating an advantage I think it could a little because the motion of switching hands can be construed by the runner as beginning to come set. He may extend his lead at this point. This could make him vulnerable to get picked off. In addition, if he realizes F1 simply switched hands, he may reduce his lead and throw his timing off for a potential steal. Many umpires I work with have this notion that almost anything a pitcher does prior to becoming set is legal and can't be balked. In fact when I talked to some of my colleagues, the first thing out of many of their mouths was, "well it was before he came set, right". Which in this case was irrelevant.

Thanks for all the input. It was probably a little of "had to be there". I would say the "looking in/taking a sign" could have been judged differently by different umpires. The kid was pretty deliberate in his motion, so it was probably right on the border of what one would consider "getting settled".

The game in question was 11U baseball. He was not taking a sign. The cases stated were FED and this was an OBR game. Do most of you call it differently depending on the rule set?

I had nothing on the first and I balked the second. We have a 9-year MiLB umpire in our association he said "no" on the first. I was not able to ask him yet about the second.

In the second situation he switched hands twice.

How much in the area of "momentary adjustments" are allowed and what constitutes a balk under these circumstances? Scenario 1: F1 comes to pitching plate with ball in his throwing hand in the stretch. He looks in, then takes the ball and places it in his glove, and then resets to an original starting position. Scenario 2: F1 comes to pitching plate with the ball in his throwing hand in the stretch. He looks in then takes the ball an puts it in his glove, then he pauses and puts it back into his pitching hand.

I think to say we have "no jurisdiction" is clearly false. But I also think it is imperative to use that jurisdiction carefully. The higher levels I go the less I react to what fans say. I was doing a 15U tournament game a few months ago. AA level at best. Many fans not knowing rules or appropriate demeanor. Early in the game there were a few bangers on the bases that went against Team A. Coaches were theatrical but not very verbal. Fans were more verbal. All of it was ignored. Then in the late innings of what was a tight game. I rang a kid up on a pitch on the inside corner for Team A. Coach asked where the pitch was, fans complained quite loudly. Answered the coach with "in the strike zone" and ignored the fans. A few pitches later more chirps from the fans, and some unnecessary body language from one of the players. Then another pitch comes in fat of the plate right at the news I call a strike and a fan screams "You've got to be kidding me". I call time and tell the coach that he needed to control his fans because if I hear anymore he will be ejected (this has never failed to work for me. Fans do not want to be responsible for the coach getting ejected). The coach argued that he doesn't have to control his fans and that they can say anything they wanted and I was just to ignore them. I explained that allowing their conduct was starting to effect the conduct of the players and I was not going to allow them to cause the game to get out of control. He adamantly disagreed with me, but it didn't matter as the fans got the message and shut up. The coach came up to me after the game and said "you know you are a really good umpire but you will never umpire at any level higher than this is you don't learn to ignore the fans". I simply said I do umpire at level higher than this. And most often do ignore those fans. But it is my job to promote sportsmanship and control the game. Your fans were impacting the game and the conduct of the players. At higher levels players are not so easily influenced by what their parents and the fans say.

I see no difference between "stalling" and purposely making outs. The rules are the rules. If the tournament includes a rule regarding no new inning starting after a certain time then both managers and teams are aware of this. Since I cannot legislate against purposely making outs, I'm also not going to legislate what is or is not stalling. As long as they are within the rules regarding time outs and such then I am not going to interject myself into it. Honestly what I get much more frustrated with is the manager/team that wants to play "hurry-up" when they are on the field. You've been lollygagging around all game with no sense of urgency and now because you are behind and need a new inning you expect the other teams batter to be ready 20 seconds after they got off the field. They are no longer allowed to take signs after pitches. And no offensive time outs are allowed. If the team leading does anything that would not have even raised an eyebrow the entire game it is all of a sudden this egregious offense. My solution. . . don't get behind where the clock becomes a factor to you.

R2 is stealing third. The throw from F2 pulls F5 off the bag and into the path of R2. As a result when R2 slides he comes up short of the bag. F5 is essentially laying on top of him at that point and applies the tag. The obstruction rule seems to clear the fielder of obstruction as long as he is making a play on the thrown ball. Is this always the case or are there any interps where if he is laying on him, but still in possession of the ball, he can be construed to have not given him a "path to the base"?

Had a situation where a batter squared to bunt and was hit by a pitch. I ruled that once the pitch came into his body that while he did not pull back the bat he was attempting to get out of the way and not attempting to bunt at the pitch. My partner disagreed and said that in his mind once a player squares his body to bunt that he views that as the equivalent of bringing the bat threw the zone and therefore feels that he has committed to the bunt and it is an attempt at that point. What are others thoughts on this?

To me a lot of other factors would come into play. Did the pitch start outside and ended up there? ball for sure. Did the catcher position his mitt just off the plate and the pitcher stuck it there? Probably a strike, but honestly I'd have to be behind the plate looking at it. Did the pitch move that direction and finish there, meaning it was closer to the plate at the front part? Depending on F2 glove movement, probably a strike. Was the pitch at the lowest or highest part of the zone or even slightly below of above? Probably a ball. Was the pitch between the thighs and the gut? Probably a strike. And most importantly what is the level of play and how good are the pitchers at spotting their pitches? At some point you simply umpire enough games that you can see the pitch characteristics and process it as to whether it looks like a strike. You will always get a few coaches and/or players complain about a single pitch here or there. That is never going to go away. But when they complain about "your zone" in general it is usually a problem with the umpire (not always as there are always idiots). I would estimate it's been almost 2 years since I've had a coach, player, or fan complain about "my zone". I hardly ever get "where was that?". Because in most cases if it looks that much like a strike to them, it also looks like one to me. When I tried to call the plate, I got complained about fairly regularly. Pitching is not easy. Command of pitches is really hard. Expecting a 14-17 year old to pitch to the plate is setting yourself up for some long games in my opinion. For example I was working a 14U tournament a few months back. We had 5 umpires for two fields so I was alternating fields doing 3-man. I took the first two plates on a 14U AA field. Pitchers were pretty accurate, although without a lot of movement in their pitches. I called my normal zone and the two games were 3-1 and 5-2, both games went 7 full innings in about an hour and a half. We started each game about 15 mins early and were done about 15 additional mins before the time limit. Everyone was happy. Fans and coaches complimented us on calling a great game. I move over to a 14U AAA field, so supposedly better quality of play. They also started their first game 15 mins early. An umpire with a notoriously small zone had the first two plates. They were 1/2 hour behind schedule when I jumped on to do 3-man with them. As long as you are consistent and don't get too carried away players, coaches and fans prefer a larger zone. I doubt any umpires call pitches that cross the edge of the plate a ball. But I've heard many coaches complain after a pitcher gets shelled "well when you have to throw it right down the middle to get a strike what do you expect". They want and their pitchers need that pitch a few inches off the plate.

I do agree that too many umpires take pride in having a big zone and so it has become the norm to "get as many strikes as you can". Some are able to take this approach and still be sensible and fair about it. Some aren't as savvy and end up calling an Eric Gregg zone.

I tend to use the inner white line (meaning closest to the plate) as my reference. If any part of the ball is nicking the white line I'm balling it. The area between the edge of the plate and the beginning of the box is my borderline area. If the pitch is thigh high and F1 pops a stationary mitt he's getting it. But I won't call pitches in the other box strikes. So batters in my game don't have any reason to stand out of the box. On another note I always find it funny how infrequently pitchers take advantage of batters that do crowd the plate. Over 1/2 the time when I see this I still see the pitchers trying to pitch away. Really dumb. Come inner half and hard and they are going to have a tough time catching up or you might jam them. Pitching away when they crowd the plate is just dumb. The distance you have to go away to miss the bat is never going to be called a strike. Yet I see it all the time.

Okay that makes sense. I was envisioning a situation where he was already out of the box and the catcher's errant throw hit him. For example a WP and batter vacates the box and the catcher not paying attention to where he is hits his helmet. But It does make sense to account for the batter starting in the box and then moving during the throw.

Just curious what the reasoning is in making it different whether the batter is in the box or not? The ball is live for runners to advance on an overthrow back to F2 whether the batter is in the box or not. So why make it a dead ball no advance if he's out of the box?