Crazy pitch/no-pitch balk

[Gfoley4]

Don't see this everyday... so if it crossed the foul line it be a pitch - ball four. But since it stopped before it is a balk and not a pitch. 

[umpstu]

Got together.  Got it right.

[dmills]

I'm wondering what took so long? Three minutes to tell them a pitch that doesn't cross the foul line with runners on is a balk? Interestingly enough, I've had this happen to me three times in my short career.

[CricketChapman]

I'm wondering what took so long? Three minutes to tell them a pitch that doesn't cross the foul line with runners on is a balk? Interestingly enough, I've had this happen to me three times in my short career.

Well, I imagine that the most difficult part was explaining why Ruiz is not permitted to score here.

[Kevin_K]

The ignorance of the rules by commentators never ceases to amaze me.

 

[noumpere]

Another example of "it's weird, the ruling went against us, so it must be wrong."

 

It's never "that's weird, but if the umpires are sure, we'll go with it.  I learned something."

[ALStripes17]

So with a 'no pitch' being declared, why were the runners not allowed to keep their advanced bases? Because it was not a wild THROW to a base or home plate as prescribed in 6.02(a) Approved Ruling? That becomes interesting interpretation territory because a pitcher stepping towards home (to pitch) and overthrowing 1B on an attempted pickoff could be called a pitch (balk since batter did not reach 1B) Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Mizzou2016]

So with a 'no pitch' being declared, why were the runners not allowed to keep their advanced bases? Because it was not a wild THROW to a base or home plate as prescribed in 6.02(a) Approved Ruling? That becomes interesting interpretation territory because a pitcher stepping towards home (to pitch) and overthrowing 1B on an attempted pickoff could be called a pitch (balk since batter did not reach 1B) Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

The runners advance a base because it is a balk. . .

You are asking whether a pitcher stepping towards home but throwing to first could be declared a ball if it crosses the foul line?

That would also be a balk - if a pitcher steps towards home, he has committed to pitch. It would be very easy to judge if it were a pitch that got away, or a throw to a base. 

[C12]

The ignorance of the rules by commentators never ceases to amaze me.

 

I was listening to the Dodgers home broadcast when this play happened. Commentator and former MLB player Rick Monday actually has a rule book with him in the booth. He gave an excellent explanation of the play. Later when I watched it on MLBTV...I can't believe Harold Reynolds is still so ignorant of the rules. So frustrating!!

[ALStripes17]

So why was the runner from 2B not allowed to score and returned to 3B? He advanced on his own liability of being put out. Hint: if you answer 'Because the batter did not reach 1B,' I will have a follow up question. Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[noumpere]

You are asking whether a pitcher stepping towards home but throwing to first could be declared a ball if it crosses the foul line?

I think he's asking:  If a pitcher balks-and-throws-wild, the ball remains live and runners can (attempt to) advance more than one base.  Why isn't the OP an example of that?

 

(sure, "throws wild" usually means the ball ends up at the backstop or down the line, but is that a requirement?)

[basejester]

So with a 'no pitch' being declared, why were the runners not allowed to keep their advanced bases? Because it was not a wild THROW to a base or home plate as prescribed in 6.02(a) Approved Ruling? That becomes interesting interpretation territory because a pitcher stepping towards home (to pitch) and overthrowing 1B on an attempted pickoff could be called a pitch (balk since batter did not reach 1B) Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I think the ball was prematurely killed.  I can see the literal argument that this was not a throw, but I don't think that's really the spirit of the rule.  But practically, the only reason Ruiz is able to score from second base is because the defense reacted to the HP umpire making the awards.  So, I think they made the correct decision to send him back to third base.

 

[ALStripes17]

I think the ball was prematurely killed.  I can see the literal argument that this was not a throw, but I don't think that's really the spirit of the rule.  But practically, the only reason Ruiz is able to score from second base is because the defense reacted to the HP umpire making the awards.  So, I think they made the correct decision to send him back to third base.

 

Jester, that is the most valid argument I have heard on this subject. I am a lone wolf fighting this fight on many other threads. No one else could come up with reasoning why Ruiz was sent back to 3B other than 'well the batter didn't reach 1B' I kept referring them to 6.02(a) Approved Ruling and they still don't get it Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Mizzou2016]

Ah makes sense now.

We can't see third base so we don't know whether Ruiz rounded hard, or if it looked like action had stopped when PU started making awards. But like @basejester said, the defense was relaxed because the umpires had killed it. Ruiz probably reacted to that. 

[goody14]

Here is my tortured logic...

From the book (emphasis mine):

It is a balk if the pitcher, while touching the pitching rubber, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball or has the ball slip or fall out of his hand or glove. However, a pitched ball which slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a “Ball;” otherwise it will be called no pitch. If the ball does not cross the foul line, this would be a balk with men on base.

 

From PBUC (section 8.9):

1. If the pitcher balks and does not throw the ball, call “That’s a balk. Time.” and enforce the balk.

   

 The pitcher did not throw the ball. He "no pitched" the ball. So, we have a balk with no throw - kill the play.

I guess the key argument is whether a "no pitch" is a thing or are they just saying it was not a pitch. If it is not a pitch, then is it a throw (even though this is not a "delivery" of the ball from one player to another...it is a slip).

If you think this is a throw, then yes you would say they killed it to early. I just am not sure this is a throw.

[NorthTexasUmp]

Here is my tortured logic...

From the book (emphasis mine):

From PBUC (section 8.9):

 The pitcher did not throw the ball. He "no pitched" the ball. So, we have a balk with no throw - kill the play.

I guess the key argument is whether a "no pitch" is a thing or are they just saying it was not a pitch. If it is not a pitch, then is it a throw (even though this is not a "delivery" of the ball from one player to another...it is a slip).

If you think this is a throw, then yes you would say they killed it to early. I just am not sure this is a throw.

Right before I read this, my thinking is that it is along the lines of an illegal pitch. I think this is a better explanation.

[basejester]

(2014 OBR)

8.01

. . .

(d) If the pitcher makes an illegal pitch with the bases unoccupied, it shall be called a ball unless the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

Rule 8.01(d) Comment:  A ball which slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base.

 

 

8.05    If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

. . .

(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally has the ball slip or fall out of his hand or glove;

. . .

APPROVED RULING:  In cases where a pitcher balks and throws wild, either to a base or to home plate, a runner or runners may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk.

[maven]

 

 The pitcher did not throw the ball. He "no pitched" the ball. So, we have a balk with no throw - kill the play.

I guess the key argument is whether a "no pitch" is a thing or are they just saying it was not a pitch. If it is not a pitch, then is it a throw (even though this is not a "delivery" of the ball from one player to another...it is a slip).

If you think this is a throw, then yes you would say they killed it to early. I just am not sure this is a throw.

Of course he threw the ball. He wasn't still holding it, and he didn't drop it. He intentionally made a throwing motion and released the ball. It wasn't a good throw, but it was a throw.

"No pitch" indicates that the pitch will add neither a ball nor a strike to the batter's count: it's a pitch that doesn't count. It's a scorekeeping concept, not a kind of pitch or way of throwing. (And 'no pitch' is not a verb...)

I think the review was to determine whether this was a pitched or thrown ball — and perhaps to get clear on the proper ruling — but it was a balk either way.

[Jimurray]

Here is my tortured logic...

From the book (emphasis mine):

From PBUC (section 8.9):

 The pitcher did not throw the ball. He "no pitched" the ball. So, we have a balk with no throw - kill the play.

I guess the key argument is whether a "no pitch" is a thing or are they just saying it was not a pitch. If it is not a pitch, then is it a throw (even though this is not a "delivery" of the ball from one player to another...it is a slip).

If you think this is a throw, then yes you would say they killed it to early. I just am not sure this is a throw.

Certainly a grey area. My opinion is that it should have been handled as a "wild" something. In which case I would use the MLBUM criteria of not calling time until all play had ceased, infielder in possession of the ball in the infield, AND all runners stopped trying to advance. I didn't see anybody actually kill the ball and it looks like O'Nora  mouths that in his conference with his partners. If a pitcher standing on the rubber drops the ball and it rolls toward the foul line and stops just short do we call the balk and kill it or call the balk and require the defense and offense to know the rules? The OP resolved itself thankfully but I bet the Dodgers would have had a beef if they got R2 at home and and O'Nora didn't even see it.

[basejester]

I tend to take things relatively literally, but I'm going to stick with an argument on general principles.  The pitching rules are such a mess.

The general idea seems to be that for pitching infractions, the play continues until it naturally stops and then the umpire calls time and awards bases.  I.e., let's see what happens with this thing, but let's not start a new thing.  The examples are various natural breaks that define a play.

 

The distinction between a throw and a drop is gray, but I think it's fair for this purpose to say that if the runner has a chance for multiple bases, it's a throw.  Here's the definition of a throw, which doesn't help my case, but here it is:

A THROW is the act of propelling the ball with the hand and arm to a given objective and is to be distinguished, always, from the pitch.

 

[Mizzou2016]

Are we missing the fact the R1 did not advance? He retreated back to first so that would not bring into play AR 6.02. Therefore the balk is enforced.

[Jimurray]

Are we missing the fact the R1 did not advance? He retreated back to first so that would not bring into play AR 6.02. Therefore the balk is enforced.

The balk should be enforced after time is called which should have been after R2 stopped trying to advance and an infielder was in possession of the ball. R1 would then be awarded 2B and R2 gets to keep his run scored. If R2 had been tagged at home the out would be recorded and R1 would get 2B. But I have hindsight to figure this out. 

[ALStripes17]

Are we missing the fact the R1 did not advance? He retreated back to first so that would not bring into play AR 6.02. Therefore the balk is enforced.

As stated on the FED FB page, the R1 did advance as the ball should have still been live at the time of his 'advance'. Will we be able to see any official interpretation come of this play? Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[basejester]

Are we missing the fact the R1 did not advance? He retreated back to first so that would not bring into play AR 6.02. Therefore the balk is enforced.

I don't think it matters.  The batter also didn't reach first.  So we are clearly enforcing the balk.  But per the approved ruling, enforcing the balk doesn't mean we send runners back to bases they achieved on their own.  AR 6.02 isn't about when to enforce a balk; it's about how to enforce a balk.

 

 

[Lindsay]

The MLBUM directly states that B1 (as well as all runners) must advance one base for the play to proceed without reference to the balk unless AR 8.05 comes into play. B1 didn't advance; hence, balk. AR 8.05 does not come into play since it is not a wild pitch (not a legal pitch as it didn't cross the foul line), nor is it a wild throw to a base (it wasn't a throw to a base).