Replacematt

Wendy's still does.

Nope. The cool thing about the action clock is that it's self-enforcing. The pitcher gets 20 seconds to use as they see fit within the rules. The batter has 8-20 seconds to do what they want to. Once that clock gets to zero, that's when we do something. There's also a simple way for the offense to keep this from happening--get in the box, but not ready to hit. This will start the 20-second clock and still prevent the pitcher from coming set until the batter is ready.

For FED, I call this legal. For NCAA and OBR, given their more stringent allowances regarding "alteration or interruption" in the past couple years, I see this being illegal (although my personal opinion is that that increased stringency is pointless and shouting at the clouds.)

...where is the deception? From the moment he makes his first step, it's pretty obvious it's a windup and not a step to throw to a base. He just takes a roundabout way to get there. I'd also point out that deception does not a balk make. There has to be a violation of some part of the rule.

I'm racking my brain, and I cannot come up with a situation where a pitcher could throw (not pitch) to home and balk in a manner where the ball would remain live.

A true Mobius strip has EXACTLY two sides...

This brings up something that strikes me as odd...and maybe it's literally just me. I cannot recall ever getting a lineup card that had two sides.

Here's a trick to avoid this situation, assuming you use the "A, B, C" method of tying the list of substitutes to the substitutions on the lineup. Assuming that there are 24 or fewer subs listed, use Y and Z for the pitcher's CR and catcher's CR, respectively. Multiple players can have one or the other, but no one can have both, and no one can have a different letter and then one of these. In this case, your lineup card would have an entry in the substitute list of something like "26 Smith A." (I use red ink for most of my notations.) When you go to the list to write a Y or Z after the proposed CR, you'll see that they have been in the game and cannot fulfill that role. (Or, if they've been a CR for the other position.) Of course, you can use whatever you want if there are too many subs listed or you don't want to use letters. As long as you can tell what it is at a glance and it doesn't look similar to other notations you do, knock yourself out.

This rule isn't an interference rule. It's a safety rule. The intent is to keep runners from hurting fielders or themselves by minimizing them creating conditions where there is the risk of contact while one or both are in vulnerable positions.

The question doesn't seem to be a matter of judgment. Judgment is what the umpire observes as the facts of the situation. Obviously, judgment occurred or else the details of the story couldn't have been shared. It seems that the questions are those of what rules, if any, are applicable to what has been adjudged.

Any time a runner is put out after passing the base which they would have been entitled on a balk award, the out stands. If there are other runners makes no difference, and what those other runners do/don't do makes no difference. Think about your second example--if the out doesn't stand, then there is no possible downside for the lead runner to try to score on any balk.

Fundamentally, I think we're at a point where we are discussing what are the umpire's responsibilities and options when presented with an illegal substitute. I think we can cast aside the portion of the discussion that is specific to courtesy runners, unless someone has a position that we would treat an illegal CR differently than other illegal substitutes. If the umpire doesn't catch it at the time of substitution, they don't. In this situation, we rely solely on the directed penalties if/when the substitute is discovered. No options here (but if it was an announced substitution, there is a question of why the umpire did not realize it at the time.) If the umpire catches it, the question seems to be can/should the umpire keep the illegal player from entering? I'll throw this out for the sharks: if we are given a lineup card with eight names, are we responsible for not accepting it until it is rectified? If there are multiple players with the same last name, are we responsible for getting initials? In every other situation that requires validation, recording, or changes involving the lineup, do we have responsibilities to ensure that it is proper? Why would this be any different? If HC comes out and attempts an illegal substitution on defense, whether intentionally or ignorantly, do we take the substitution and then eject the player before they can even get off the bench? Is that a good look? This isn't a playing situation. This is administrative, so to speak. I can say that anywhere I work, if I had the knowledge and the opportunity to prevent such an illegal act and at least one ejection, and did not do so, it would go over like a pregnant woman on a pole vault.

More likely it's related to the fact it was the service that notified MLB of the situation.

Yep, and it wasn't a batted ball or the fielder. The same criteria applies as on any other throw. It has to be a movement that reacts to actually seeing the throw and moving into its path, or something other than running. (This is why the video clip is helpful, because it's better at explaining than trying to write it out can do.)

We use it at pretty high levels, and an MLB umpire has mentioned that he uses it there. I think, like all tools, it's probably a matter of time and delivery. There are few things that have that bit of latitude...steps to first, something like the OP. "I didn't have that, but it wouldn't surprise me if another umpire would."

There is something that is ironic and that should make the brain circuits short out on those who think officials actually rig games...the one official who had even an indirect tie to gambling was the one often held up as being the most accurate and consistent.

The Wendelstedt video series uses that as an example of non-interference and why--I've listed the published interpretations elsewhere in this thread.

Willful and deliberate refers to a batted ball and the intent to interfere with a double play (Wendelstedt 9.3.10,) or interfering with the fielder on such an attempt (9.3.11, and your own cite from MLBUM.)

The reason for that authority, as it stands now, is for other things. I used to have the same viewpoint as you, that it's impossible to have rules to cover everything. I mentioned that to a mentor of mine, former MiLB and several CWS appearances, and he completely changed my thinking...this is what he said (paraphrasing:) Bottom line: there's a rule for everything. Everything regarding actions is covered in the rulebook or interpretations. It's just a matter of being familiar enough to know what applies and when, and when things don't apply. Save the gap-filling for when something comes onto the field from outside of it--the rulebook (and its accompaniments) draw out what happens in the imaginary, self-contained world of the field itself. And you know what? He was right. I cannot think of an example (even on his challenge) of anything a player can do that doesn't have a rule to cover or exclude it. And I get that may be a tough approach to accept, especially if one doesn't have access to all the tools involved such as school manuals, manuals promulgated by professional baseball, etc. But they're in there. And secondarily, the modality of clinic/school training cannot be understated, because it provides the reinforcement and greater explanation than the written word can.

I'm not talking about anything involving opinions. I'm talking about facts--arguing with published interpretations. I'm not worrying about anything, thanks. So? If I feel people are acting out of line, I will remind them that there is an audience to be lost. It isn't about me, but their behavior. I can only speak to what I can control regarding that. Well, since I didn't do that...

You mean running? Because that's...running. The exact MLB situations mentioned here are used as the ones there as examples of the published interpretation. The bullSH*# going on in this thread is why this place lost value, and why I'm regretting my decision to come back. Just a lot of yeahbuts. (Along with subtle and not-so-subtle bigotry, and the urge for some people to make underhanded political comments that show no semblance of any knowledge about what they say, but that's a different thread.)

There has to be an act separate from running. Wendelstedt 9.3.9 (which is about interference with a fielder, but as covered in school, it applies to a throw.) To make running in the path of a yet-to-be-thrown ball or unseen throw illegal creates a de facto requirement that they have to vacate space for a throw, thus requiring runners not to be hit by the ball 100% of the time, even if it isn't intentional. Why does R3 lead off in foul and come back in fair? To get in the way of a throw. Bam...now it's illegal.

Intent isn't sufficient on its own for this type of INT, as I've already said. If you would stop getting hung up on that part of it, you would see why this is not INT. And making SH*# up when there are rules to cover things (and there is a rule for everything a player can/cannot do related to game play) is lazy umpiring. It's not getting into the book and not getting what rules mean and intend, and what they don't mean and intend. And I take umbrage at people casting aspersions on others, especially groups of people, while living in glass houses, and on top of that, to add on a glaze of holier-than-thou? GTFO. I hope your shoulder heals in time for your season.

What your position boils down to is that batter-runner initially touches white base=batter-runner is automatically out. I find that a very hard argument to support. Counterpoint: batter-runner trips over the foul line (it is senior slowpitch, after all) and faceplants on the white bag, then rolls over into the orange one. Still an automatic out?

Given that intent is only half the criteria for what makes something an illegal act in these situations...maybe that's the issue you're having? This is the second time recently where you've mentioned umpires taking the easy way out (or words to that effect) when you have been 100% in the wrong. In fact, your other mention of it has the idea of legality and interpreting rules completely backwards and ironically suggests to do lazy umpiring rather than doing the right thing, all while saying that those that do get it are doing it incorrectly.