Replacematt

I'm guessing he started to signal and decided that it was a ball; not truly changing it. Timing, timing, timing.

Would it help if I told you I personally knew two of the four names that you've mentioned? For the record, J/R is a tool to help you, not official interpretations. It has lost some of its luster due to its conflict with either authoritative or more credible sources. That's not to say it's useless, but there's more that you need to have besides it. Here's the thing...if you are claiming that "most of us" are arrogant, chances are it's not us that's the problem. If you want a look at where this thread went downhill, it was post #14. There were multiple attempts by more than one person to get the relevant facts and to get you to the right spot, but you chose to argue.

Where it goes out has a bearing on the award. Not saying your wrong, but do you have a citation for that? 6.09h and 7.05f.

Where it goes out has a bearing on the award.

Get them for USC. Make sure your whole association is aware of the trend, and be consistent in nailing them.

This is the indicator I use:

I don't see this trend, either. I don't think I've had MC on a catcher-involved collision in the last decade.

Not only is the application incorrect, the rules themselves are not relevant. For an act to be illegal under those rules, the purpose has to be delaying the game. Otherwise, any time a pitcher did his "bad" move with no intent of getting the runner, it would be illegal.

If you don't like bluntness, tough. Pay attention to what people say the first time and don't play games. I gave you an answer and you decided that you were going to ignore what I said and just keep your head in the sand. You got the answer, you just are stuck in this false idea that this is a balk and that you will not accept anything else. If you were serious about getting an answer, you would have answered the questions I've asked of you, so that you can get an idea of the balk concept. However, just like the rest of what I said, you ignored them. What you show here and what you have said you have done have given me an idea of where you fall in game management. Claiming that one has to explain why a move is legal to a coach is a sign of not knowing one's role as an umpire. It shows that you don't have much experience in dealing with these situations. It's a very asinine statement, in fact, and I don't wish for new umpires to think that is the approach to take.

How do they define delay of game?

There are no sweeping statements, just specific ones which, of course, have great certainty--we know what the proper ruling is. You don't, otherwise you wouldn't be asking. So, if he throws to first, what justification do you have to call a balk? Rule cite, please.

I'm going to be blunt with you. You need to stop talking and start listening. You are looking for an excuse to make an action illegal. It isn't. The rule book isn't written that way. Find in the rulebook where it says base coaches can give signs to batters. Find in the rulebook where it says runners can assist each other. Find in the rulebook where it says catchers can wear shinguards. These are all legal things that you will not find. Also, delaying the game by throwing to a fielder is not a balk in and of itself. As for game management, I will stack mine against yours any day of the week. I've got the schedule to back it up. Let me conclude with this thought: if you call a balk on this, and DC comes out, what are you going to tell him?

Let me break this down again. There is no rule that says it is illegal to throw to F3 off the bag. If he is not in position to make a play, it is considered a feint to first. If F1 is on the rubber, then it is illegal to feint to first. It is not illegal to feint to first when F1 is not on the rubber. Find in any rulebook anything that mentions prohibitions or restrictions for 1B when F1 is not on the rubber. All of them specifically state that infractions regarding first can only occur with F1 engaged. And yes, the proper answer to a coach is indeed, "It's not illegal, therefore it's legal."

And what does that have to do with anything? I was told to never match team colors Forget you ever heard that. What the teams wear is not important to your uniform. If it was, we'd be SOL in NCAA whenever a team in black played a team in light blue.

It is legal because it isn't illegal. It is only illegal for a pitcher to feint to first (which this is) if he is on the rubber.

If he's on the rubber, you've already cited the case plays/interpretations for it being a balk. It's considered a feint to throw to a fielder not in a position to make a play. If he's not, you aren't going to find one, because it's legal. Rules prohibit illegal actions, they don't specify legal actions (unless they are exceptions to illegal actions.)

Yes. If he's on the rubber, it could be a balk; if he's not, it couldn't be.

What was the infraction?

And what does that have to do with anything?

You forgot Hit By Rouge SUV on infield, Alien Abduction, Protecting Player From Bigfoot/Yetti Kidnapping What if the SUV is blue?

I won't speak as to whether it's acceptable--I am not the arbiter of allowable accoutrements--but while in and of itself it looks good, I would hate seeing it on an umpire. I am the guy that coordinates harness and pads to what I'm wearing, though. I don't have any gold uniforms.

There is a difference between infielders and outfielders for the purpose of the relevant rule, though. It's the first throw, so because it was an IF, it's TOP. If it had been an OF, it would be TOT.

Legal, and home and third. It's late. All score.

You are correct. He also may be conflating this with NCAA 9-1-f, which says that the pitcher must pitch from the same stance as when he took signs.

Legal, and home and third.