Balk?

[Kevin_K]

A friend asked me this the other night.

R3. F1 is in the windup position with both hands at his side. He raises both hands simultaneously and brings them together chest high and pauses while he takes the signs from F2. Once he receives his signs, he begins a rocker step and continues with the pitch with no stop.

Our chapter interpreter said balk and I disagreed. Interpreter said it would not be a balk if F1 started with glove hand at chest height and brought his hands together, but because he moved both hands it simulated the start of the pitching motion. My thought is  that bringing the hands together is not the start of the pitching motion.

Fed case books has these:

6.1.2 SITUATION C:

With a runner on third base, F1 steps on to the pitcher’s plate in the windup position and his glove hand in front of his body and his pitching hand at his side (a) immediately brings his hands together for the purpose of taking the sign but does not begin his delivery, or (b) gets the sign and then brings his hands together and stops before delivering a pitch, or (c) gets the sign, brings his hands together and continues his pitching motion.

RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), these are all legal moves.

6.1.2 SITUATION H:

F1, with both arms at his side in the wind-up position, first moves his glove to a position in front of his chest, stops his momentum, and then moves his pitching hand into the glove.

RULING: This is legal.

Both of these address bringing the hands together, but both situations start with F1 having his glove hand in front to start. Can anyone offer more interpretations?

[ALStripes17]

A friend asked me this the other night.

R3. F1 is in the windup position with both hands at his side. He raises both hands simultaneously and brings them together chest high and pauses while he takes the signs from F2. Once he receives his signs, he begins a rocker step and continues with the pitch with no stop.

Our chapter interpreter said balk and I disagreed. Interpreter said it would not be a balk if F1 started with glove hand at chest height and brought his hands together, but because he moved both hands it simulated the start of the pitching motion. My thought is  that bringing the hands together is not the start of the pitching motion.

Fed case books has these:

6.1.2 SITUATION C:

With a runner on third base, F1 steps on to the pitcher’s plate in the windup position and his glove hand in front of his body and his pitching hand at his side (a) immediately brings his hands together for the purpose of taking the sign but does not begin his delivery, or (b) gets the sign and then brings his hands together and stops before delivering a pitch, or © gets the sign, brings his hands together and continues his pitching motion.

RULING: In (a), (b) and ©, these are all legal moves.

6.1.2 SITUATION H:

F1, with both arms at his side in the wind-up position, first moves his glove to a position in front of his chest, stops his momentum, and then moves his pitching hand into the glove.

RULING: This is legal.

Both of these address bringing the hands together, but both situations start with F1 having his glove hand in front to start. Can anyone offer more interpretations?

Your chapter interpreter sounds like he will never get out of the last game he was assigned to work.

It's similar to OBR's momentary pause. How quickly does the pitcher honestly need to have his hands up in front of his body before he looks in to get a sign? OOO is your interpreter...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[scrounge]

Absolutely a balk. If he doesn't start or take his initial position with both hands in front, then any motion involving both hands simultaneously is the start of the motion.
 

Start with both hands is ok. Moving one hand then the other is ok. Starting with both hands down and then moving both - better keep going, cause that's the start of the motion. This was a POE from our state interpreter, as well as being explicitly defined in Rule 2 under definition of time of pitch.

 

2.28.3 SITUATION C: With R1 on third base, F1 steps on the pitcher’s plate to take a sign from F2. After taking the sign, F1 brings both hands up together in front of his body and then stops to adjust the ball. RULING: This is balk. R1 is awarded home. The time of the pitch occurred when F1 moved both arms. COMMENT: What is the time of the pitch for the (a) windup or (b) set position? For the windup position, the “time of the pitch” occurs when the pitcher (a) after stepping onto the pitcher’s plate, with both hands in front of his body first starts any movement of his arm(s) or leg(s) prior to delivering the pitch; (b) with both hands at his side, he first starts any movement with both arms or the non-pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch; (c) with either hand in front of his body and the other hand at his side, after bringing his hands together, he first starts any movement of his arm(s) or leg(s) prior to delivering the pitch. In (b), it occurs the instant the pitcher, after coming to a complete and discernible stop, starts any movement with arm(s) and/or leg(s) that commits him to pitch.

Rule: 6.1.2

[ALStripes17]

Absolutely a balk. If he doesn't start or take his initial position with both hands in front, then any motion involving both hands simultaneously is the start of the motion.

 

Start with both hands is ok. Moving one hand then the other is ok. Starting with both hands down and then moving both - better keep going, cause that's the start of the motion. This was a POE from our state interpreter, as well as being explicitly defined in Rule 2 under definition of time of pitch.

 

2.28.3 SITUATION C: With R1 on third base, F1 steps on the pitcher’s plate to take a sign from F2. After taking the sign, F1 brings both hands up together in front of his body and then stops to adjust the ball. RULING: This is balk. R1 is awarded home. The time of the pitch occurred when F1 moved both arms. COMMENT: What is the time of the pitch for the (a) windup or (b) set position? For the windup position, the “time of the pitch” occurs when the pitcher (a) after stepping onto the pitcher’s plate, with both hands in front of his body first starts any movement of his arm(s) or leg(s) prior to delivering the pitch; (b) with both hands at his side, he first starts any movement with both arms or the non-pivot foot prior to delivering the pitch; © with either hand in front of his body and the other hand at his side, after bringing his hands together, he first starts any movement of his arm(s) or leg(s) prior to delivering the pitch. In (b), it occurs the instant the pitcher, after coming to a complete and discernible stop, starts any movement with arm(s) and/or leg(s) that commits him to pitch.

Rule: 6.1.2

Unless he adjusts his hat...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

Yes indeed, our state interpreter (Ohio) has been making a big deal about exactly this move, and wants it called a balk every time. With no runners, he wants an illegal pitch! (Egad!)

I would add: after we call this balk, make sure coach knows why it's a balk, and what he did. "He started and stopped!" is probably insufficient.

[scrounge]

2 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Unless he adjusts his hat...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

if he adjusts his hat with both hands, then the answer is the same

[maven]

11 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

It's similar to OBR's momentary pause. How quickly does the pitcher honestly need to have his hands up in front of his body before he looks in to get a sign? OOO is your interpreter...

Just on this bit: the momentary pause to adjust the ball is permissible when F1 engages with his pitching hand at his side and his glove hand up. After taking his sign, he may move ONE hand and adjust the ball prior to starting his motion to pitch.

Moving BOTH hands by bringing them together is the start of the pitch by rule. If he does that, he may not pause to adjust the ball.

[ALStripes17]

Just on this bit: the momentary pause to adjust the ball is permissible when F1 engages with his pitching hand at his side and his glove hand up. After taking his sign, he may move ONE hand and adjust the ball prior to starting his motion to pitch.

Moving BOTH hands by bringing them together is the start of the pitch by rule. If he does that, he may not pause to adjust the ball.

Understood. I've never seen a pitcher stand on the rubber with both arms by his side just chilling for a length of time before actually coming back to reality and realizing he needs to take signs from his catcher.

I know many address the rubber and bring hands up, in essence, simultaneously... Nitpicking this length of time is OOO IMO

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Understood. I've never seen a pitcher stand on the rubber with both arms by his side just chilling for a length of time before actually coming back to reality and realizing he needs to take signs from his catcher.

I know many address the rubber and bring hands up, in essence, simultaneously... Nitpicking this length of time is OOO IMO

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I think @lawump should address this FED TOP difference at his meeting. 

[scrounge]

14 minutes ago, ALStripes17 said:

Understood. I've never seen a pitcher stand on the rubber with both arms by his side just chilling for a length of time before actually coming back to reality and realizing he needs to take signs from his catcher.

I know many address the rubber and bring hands up, in essence, simultaneously... Nitpicking this length of time is OOO IMO

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

If it's even remotely close to stepping on the rubber, then it's assuming the initial position to me and I'll explain it thusly. But if he's just standing there looking in, and then moves both hands together and pauses again - well, I'm gonna call it.

[maven]

1 hour ago, scrounge said:

If it's even remotely close to stepping on the rubber, then it's assuming the initial position to me and I'll explain it thusly. But if he's just standing there looking in, and then moves both hands together and pauses again - well, I'm gonna call it.

Exactly my approach (except I don't say "thusly" which is not a word ).

[scrounge]

2 minutes ago, maven said:

Exactly my approach (except I don't say "thusly" which is not a word ).

Au contraire mon fraire (I know that, technically, I should say mon ami but that doesn't rhyme, so...)....dictionary.com does indeed have an entry.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thusly

Now it may describe it as a useless phrase, but it's there!

I watched too much "Good Eats" back in the day, must have been where I picked it up

[maven]

1 hour ago, scrounge said:

Au contraire mon fraire (I know that, technically, I should say mon ami but that doesn't rhyme, so...)....dictionary.com does indeed have an entry.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/thusly

Now it may describe it as a useless phrase, but it's there!

I watched too much "Good Eats" back in the day, must have been where I picked it up

dictionary.com isn't a real dictionary, so that doesn't prove anything. 'Thus' is already an adverb, so adding '-ly' is redundant, lexically promiscuous, and yucky.

[scrounge]

5 minutes ago, maven said:

dictionary.com isn't a real dictionary, so that doesn't prove anything. 'Thus' is already an adverb, so adding '-ly' is redundant, lexically promiscuous, and yucky.

Well, that's a bit paperist, don't you think?

Irregardless of this opinion, I think I'm on solid ground on the use of thusly. One of the french benefits of forum writing, IMO, is the flexibility to adapt and change outside the normal strictures of grammer. Supposably there are these rules, but trying to stick to them will literally make your head explode. For all intensive purposes, this is the proper usage. To those who claim otherwise, I could care less.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm a bit nauseous. Perhaps a nice expresso will help.

[ALStripes17]

Well, that's a bit paperist, don't you think?

Irregardless of this opinion, I think I'm on solid ground on the use of thusly. One of the french benefits of forum writing, IMO, is the flexibility to adapt and change outside the normal strictures of grammer. Supposably there are these rules, but trying to stick to them will literally make your head explode. For all intensive purposes, this is the proper usage. To those who claim otherwise, I could care less.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm a bit nauseous. Perhaps a nice expresso will help.

I think scrounge just had a major epiphone

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Kevin_K]

Thanks for the help guys!

[blue23ll]

9 hours ago, maven said:

Yes indeed, our state interpreter (Ohio) has been making a big deal about exactly this move, and wants it called a balk every time. With no runners, he wants an illegal pitch! (Egad!)

I would add: after we call this balk, make sure coach knows why it's a balk, and what he did. "He started and stopped!" is probably insufficient.

We had a pretty animated discussion on about the same topic at our meeting last night. No runners on, pitcher in the set position, and he doesn't come to a stop. Do we call illegal pitch on this??

[noumpere]

11 hours ago, blue23ll said:

We had a pretty animated discussion on about the same topic at our meeting last night. No runners on, pitcher in the set position, and he doesn't come to a stop. Do we call illegal pitch on this??

By rule, it is an illegal pitch in FED.

 

Now, do you call it?  Well, that's up to your association.  Personally, when there are no runners, I can concentrate much more on the pitcher and I'm able to see the tiniest pause -- one that I might not see if there are runners. 

[maven]

13 hours ago, blue23ll said:

We had a pretty animated discussion on about the same topic at our meeting last night. No runners on, pitcher in the set position, and he doesn't come to a stop. Do we call illegal pitch on this??

I never have. I send F2 out and tell him to stop, even with no runners.

[Cav]

The only way an official can get a (silly, stupid, useless, et. al.) rule changed is to enforce it.

[kylehutson]

22 hours ago, maven said:

dictionary.com isn't a real dictionary, so that doesn't prove anything. 'Thus' is already an adverb, so adding '-ly' is redundant, lexically promiscuous, and yucky.

Merriam-Webster is, though. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thusly

It may be all of those things, but it is a word.

[kylehutson]

2 hours ago, Cav said:

The only way an official can a (silly, stupid, useless, et. al.) rule changed is to enforce it.

I think you accidentally a word.

[Cav]

44 minutes ago, kylehutson said:

I think you accidentally a word.

As Phoebe would be apt to ask, "Did I forget or did I simply fail to remember?"