Balk with catcher's interference

[UmpTTS43]

Balk came first, if conditions are not met to ignore it then enforce it. CI is not one of the conditions so can't be the penalty that makes the balk ok to ignore. CI came second.

Thanks for joining the discussion.

You would be incorrect.

[Don]

If you mean, in general, as far as CI not being condition, I agree, but in this case the CI does not create the situation to ignore the balk because all runners did not advance one base.

Batter could hit a HR on CI and balk would be ignored in OBR.

[UmpTTS43]

If you mean, in general, as far as CI not being condition, I agree, but in this case the CI does not create the situation to ignore the balk because all runners did not advance one base.

Batter could hit a HR on CI and balk would be ignored in OBR.

Or, bases could be loaded when CI occurs. The award of batter 1st due to the INT forces all other runners one base.

Should sound familiar if you read the entire thread.

[fullcount13]

I keep getting hung up on the rule where everyone is saying "to satisfy the requirements for a balk, all the runners INCLUDING the batter runner must advance at least 1 base." Maybe I'm just overlooking something here (also not that many years under my belt), but I didn't realize the batter had to gain a base on a balk as well. For example, let's say there's R1. F1 balks, but makes the pitch anyway, F2 throws to 2B but is unsuccessful in catching R1 stealing 2B. Now the ball is called dead. The way I'm reading the comments is that eventhough R1 advanced one base safely, the batter also gets 1B? I'm pretty sure I'm reading something wrong here. Need some clarification guys, thanks

[noumpere]

I keep getting hung up on the rule where everyone is saying "to satisfy the requirements for a balk, all the runners INCLUDING the batter runner must advance at least 1 base." Maybe I'm just overlooking something here (also not that many years under my belt), but I didn't realize the batter had to gain a base on a balk as well. For example, let's say there's R1. F1 balks, but makes the pitch anyway, F2 throws to 2B but is unsuccessful in catching R1 stealing 2B. Now the ball is called dead. The way I'm reading the comments is that eventhough R1 advanced one base safely, the batter also gets 1B? I'm pretty sure I'm reading something wrong here. Need some clarification guys, thanks

They were taking the situation where the balked pitch was batted so the batter became a runner. Then the batter must advance. Otherwise if the batter doesnt become a runner of course he doesnt need to advance. Here the balk will still be acknowledged in the sense that the pitch is disregarded but the play stands for the runner or runners who advanced.

[fullcount13]

Got ya! Thanks for clearing that up!

[mstaylor]

Think of the exception this way, the batter must at least first base safely and any runners must advance at least one base. If all of these things don't happen then enforce the balk. This means if the batter walks or is HBP and forces all the runners then let it go. The batter doesn't have to hit it, simply get to first and make all the other runners move.

[umpschool]

If I could chime in:

We teach that you enforce penalties as the provisions provide for. For instance, in order for a balk to be nullified, all runners including the batter must advance one base safely. However, if it is followed by a catcher's interference, you must first enforce the catcher's interference (if necessary) to see if all runners, including the BR advance. And that requires that you let the entire play end. Take the following play:

Bases loaded, no one out. Pitcher balks, followed by catcher's interference. The batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop in the hole, who throws to first to retire the BR. However, on the play, R2 rounds third and heads for home. He is called safe on a close play at the plate. At the end of the play, R3 and R2 have scored. R1 advanced to second base, and the BR was thrown out at first.

It seems that out of all the answers on here, none (that I have quickly glanced over) would have been correct. I've seen two camps of explanation in this thread. Let me show you how each is in error.

The first camp says that you should enforce the balk as soon as the BR was put out because they all didn't advance one base safely. This is not appropriate because the catcher's interference (listed as "or otherwise" in the balk penalty) has not been enforced. Enforcing only the balk would create this situation -- R3 scores, R2 is awarded third base, R1 is awarded second base, and the BR is returned to bat with the previous count.

The second camp insists that you enforce the catcher's interference (they're right, BTW), but that you should also kill the play right away (they're wrong, BTW). Enforcing it this way would create this situation -- The BR is awarded first base, R1 is awarded second base, R2 is awarded third base, and R3 is awarded to score. Now that all runners, including the BR, have advanced one base safely, the balk is nullified. If the offensive manager wanted to elect to take the results of the play (because he's greedy), he has the right to do so. Problem is, there are no results under this interpretation because you killed it right away.

Now let's say you leave it in play and R2 is called safe. Since they did not all advance a base safely, you enforce the catcher's interference. But now the manager comes out and says, "I want R2 to score. I elect to take the results of the play."

You would then rule on that election. R3 would score, R2 would score, R1 would be awarded second base, and the BR would be called out.

After all the runners then reach their awarded bases, all runners, including the BR, have now NOT advanced a base safely. You would then enforce the balk penalty after all. Enforcing the balk would create this situation -- R3 scores, R2 is awarded third base, R1 is awarded second base, and the BR is returned to bat with the previous count.

Once they ask for it, they can't go back. Yes, they still only have one run score, but the BR isn't standing on first base. Instead, he'll be batting again, and first base is empty. They're required to know the rules too.

[AZump78]

Well I'll be damned. Thanks for resolving.

[mstaylor]

I am confused. I agree that on the balk and CI, let the play go through. My understanding, especially under pro rules, on a CI you enforce the penalty first, then change it if the manager wants the play. I also was under the impression that if the play doesn't satisfy the balk exception then you either have to default to either the original CI enforcement or the balk. I have never seen anybody say you could take the result and the balk together. It's an interesting concept but not my understanding of how the progression works.

[UmpTTS43]

I am confused. I agree that on the balk and CI, let the play go through. My understanding, especially under pro rules, on a CI you enforce the penalty first, then change it if the manager wants the play. I also was under the impression that if the play doesn't satisfy the balk exception then you either have to default to either the original CI enforcement or the balk. I have never seen anybody say you could take the result and the balk together. It's an interesting concept but not my understanding of how the progression works.

In our situation, the CI penalty forces all runners when the batter is awarded first due to the penalty. Since this senario satisfies the criteria for disregarding the balk, the CI penalty can be applied. Now if skip wants the play instead of the CI penalty, the criteria for ignoring the balk was not met, therefore the balk penalty is enforced.

R1R3 0 outs. F1 balks in his delivery. Catcher interferes with the batter as he hits the ball to F1 who throws out BR at first. At the conlusion of the play we have R2R3. If we enforce the CI, batter is awarded 1st, R1 forced to 2nd, R3 remains. Since all runners including the BR did not advance one base, the balk is enforced without the possibility of the penalty for CI being enforced. This is the same as if you had R1R3 with F1 balking and hitting the batter with the pitch. Since the award to the batter did not advance all runners inclucing the BR, the balk is enforced.

I don't know if this clears up your question.

[Haid D' Salaami]

see another good reason to go to Harry's... Jim's or TUS aren't on here helping us answer questions.

[Guest]

see another good reason to go to Harry's... Jim's or TUS aren't on here helping us answer questions.

I think the staff at Jim's have more "important issues" to deal with at the moment.

Good point though.

[mstaylor]

I am confused. I agree that on the balk and CI, let the play go through. My understanding, especially under pro rules, on a CI you enforce the penalty first, then change it if the manager wants the play. I also was under the impression that if the play doesn't satisfy the balk exception then you either have to default to either the original CI enforcement or the balk. I have never seen anybody say you could take the result and the balk together. It's an interesting concept but not my understanding of how the progression works.

In our situation, the CI penalty forces all runners when the batter is awarded first due to the penalty. Since this senario satisfies the criteria for disregarding the balk, the CI penalty can be applied. Now if skip wants the play instead of the CI penalty, the criteria for ignoring the balk was not met, therefore the balk penalty is enforced.

R1R3 0 outs. F1 balks in his delivery. Catcher interferes with the batter as he hits the ball to F1 who throws out BR at first. At the conlusion of the play we have R2R3. If we enforce the CI, batter is awarded 1st, R1 forced to 2nd, R3 remains. Since all runners including the BR did not advance one base, the balk is enforced without the possibility of the penalty for CI being enforced. This is the same as if you had R1R3 with F1 balking and hitting the batter with the pitch. Since the award to the batter did not advance all runners inclucing the BR, the balk is enforced.

I don't know if this clears up your question.

Not really. I am not saying what umpschool is wrong, I'm just confused how it all shakes out. Nevermind, I reread what they wrote and it now makes sense. I didn't realize it could go that far but because we handle things differently in amateur ball I doubt we would ever see it. In pro ball you enforce the normal enforcement and let the coach decide to if he wants the option. In amateur ball we would normally explain to the coach he has an option and what they are. I had never looked at the pro view and the inability to unring the bell.

[Haid D' Salaami]

In college we are gonna make the coach come and ask for the result of the play..

[mstaylor]

Are you sure? A few years ago they said in the Atlanta meeting to give them the option.

[UmpTTS43]

My understanding is, concerning NCAA games, the coach should be informed of his options. I, too, remember this being discussed nationally. In fact, it is a good rule of thumb to work by in all amateur contests whenever an option is in play.

[Haid D' Salaami]

I was told in NCAA games... the coach has to come and ask...

[mstaylor]

I believe that to be incorrect. Some assoc get too rung up on the pro way they forget they aren't in the pros. I'm not talking about you but your higher ups.

[umped up]

I keep getting hung up on the rule where everyone is saying "to satisfy the requirements for a balk, all the runners INCLUDING the batter runner must advance at least 1 base." Maybe I'm just overlooking something here (also not that many years under my belt), but I didn't realize the batter had to gain a base on a balk as well. For example, let's say there's R1. F1 balks, but makes the pitch anyway, F2 throws to 2B but is unsuccessful in catching R1 stealing 2B. Now the ball is called dead. The way I'm reading the comments is that eventhough R1 advanced one base safely, the batter also gets 1B? I'm pretty sure I'm reading something wrong here. Need some clarification guys, thanks

They were taking the situation where the balked pitch was batted so the batter became a runner. Then the batter must advance. Otherwise if the batter doesnt become a runner of course he doesnt need to advance. Here the balk will still be acknowledged in the sense that the pitch is disregarded but the play stands for the runner or runners who advanced.

This has been a very enlightening thread. I have a question. What if a coach comes out to argue that the balk happened before the batter was a runner, therfore, how can you enforce that rule. Is it simply because he threw the pitch, therfore remains a live ball and by him hitting it is a continuation of the balk call. Hope that makes sense.

[mstaylor]

If you are using OBR, tell him by rule if a pitcher pitches the ball on a balk call, plays continues to see if the balk will be nullified. I had an offensive manager object when I called a balk and allowed the play to continue. He ended up with a run scored and bases loaded. With the balk he gets a run, R2,R3 and the same batter. I explained why it was what it was. I told him we were going to play and I would show him after the game. I asked him if he had bases loaded, I call balk and his batter hits a grand slam which does he want? He said he wanted the balk. This was a state tournament.

[umped up]

If you are using OBR, tell him by rule if a pitcher pitches the ball on a balk call, plays continues to see if the balk will be nullified. I had an offensive manager object when I called a balk and allowed the play to continue. He ended up with a run scored and bases loaded. With the balk he gets a run, R2,R3 and the same batter. I explained why it was what it was. I told him we were going to play and I would show him after the game. I asked him if he had bases loaded, I call balk and his batter hits a grand slam which does he want? He said he wanted the balk. This was a state tournament.

Now that's funny right there! I cant think of many situations where you wouldn't take 4 runs over 1. I know from playing ball that sometimes a HR kills a rally (believe it or not) but I doubt this is what he was thinking. What you said makes sense. Where is that rule by the way? Im being lazy :ZZZ:

[yawetag]

Where is that rule by the way? Im being lazy

What rule are you referring to?

[umped up]

Where is that rule by the way? Im being lazy

What rule are you referring to?

Crew chief said to "tell him by rule if the pitcher pitches the ball on a balk call, plays continue to see if the balk will be nullified". Is that in the actual language?

[mstaylor]

8.05