OBR 707

[noumpere]

I'll certainly give the catcher the benefit of the doubt oif the batter steps out but if the catcher gets all the way in front of the plate Im making the call. The catcher has gained an opportunity to make the tage earlier than he would of had he waited for the ball behind the plate.

[UmpTTS43]

I'll certainly give the catcher the benefit of the doubt oif the batter steps out but if the catcher gets all the way in front of the plate Im making the call. The catcher has gained an opportunity to make the tage earlier than he would of had he waited for the ball behind the plate.

This is the precise reason why you would call a balk in this situation. You are not going to call INT and award batter 1st when he removed himself from the play and there was absolutely no chance for INT.

[Jimurray]

I'll certainly give the catcher the benefit of the doubt oif the batter steps out but if the catcher gets all the way in front of the plate Im making the call. The catcher has gained an opportunity to make the tage earlier than he would of had he waited for the ball behind the plate.

This is the precise reason why you would call a balk in this situation. You are not going to call INT and award batter 1st when he removed himself from the play and there was absolutely no chance for INT.

So you would take half the rule and score the run and call the pitch a ball?

[UmpTTS43]

I'll certainly give the catcher the benefit of the doubt oif the batter steps out but if the catcher gets all the way in front of the plate Im making the call. The catcher has gained an opportunity to make the tage earlier than he would of had he waited for the ball behind the plate.

This is the precise reason why you would call a balk in this situation. You are not going to call INT and award batter 1st when he removed himself from the play and there was absolutely no chance for INT.

So you would take half the rule and score the run and call the pitch a ball?

I'm not applying any part of 7.07. What I am doing is calling a balk since the pitch failed to cross the foul line. In calling the balk, the run will score.

[UmpTTS43]

Rich,

It is my impression that you believe that if a batter abandons his legal position in the batter's box, he is entitled to get the INT call in our situation. If that is the case, do you believe that a batter can step entirely out of the back of the box, swing, make contact with the catcher's mitt, and still be awarded 1st base on the INT even though he was the one that caused the infraction by ending up in an illegal position?

[Jocko]

Rich,

It is my impression that you believe that if a batter abandons his legal position in the batter's box, he is entitled to get the INT call in our situation. If that is the case, do you believe that a batter can step entirely out of the back of the box, swing, make contact with the catcher's mitt, and still be awarded 1st base on the INT even though he was the one that caused the infraction by ending up in an illegal position?

you guys have to remember, Rich Ives is the COACH. he will always try to shade the rule in his favor. While being freakishly Rain-Man ish with rule QUOTATION, I don't generally with his opinion of rule APPLICATION. I enjoy him being here for the references he gives. I rarely agree with him on any given sitch. Look at his avatar.

[dddunn3d]

7.07

If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

No where does 7.07 say that a pitch must be delivered or a play be made.

If these requirements are in fact met:

a- R3 "trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal";

b- F2, or any other fielder

i. "steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball," or;

ii. "touches the batter or his bat";

then F1 is charged with a balk (even if no pitch has been delivered), B is awarded 1B (a specific award, not like that in 6.08c), and the ball is dead (not delayed dead like a 'normal' OBR balk).

Makes absolutely no difference what the batter does in this situation. The rule itself defines the infraction and the penalty.

Of course, saying this immediately put this situation in my head:

R3 stealing, F1 steps off and then throws home. But F2 steps on home plate

a- before F1 disengages, or

b- after F1 disengages.

Now what? Is the sequence of events the telling factor? Or maybe a pitch is required to make 7.07 work as envisioned, even though the rule says nothing about it.

[Rich Ives]

Rich,

It is my impression that you believe that if a batter abandons his legal position in the batter's box, he is entitled to get the INT call in our situation. If that is the case, do you believe that a batter can step entirely out of the back of the box, swing, make contact with the catcher's mitt, and still be awarded 1st base on the INT even though he was the one that caused the infraction by ending up in an illegal position?

you guys have to remember, Rich Ives is the COACH. he will always try to shade the rule in his favor. While being freakishly Rain-Man ish with rule QUOTATION, I don't generally with his opinion of rule APPLICATION. I enjoy him being here for the references he gives. I rarely agree with him on any given sitch. Look at his avatar.

Fishman - you don't get it. It could be my catcher or my batter. Without knowing which it is how can you claim I'm shading it?

[Rich Ives]

7.07

If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

No where does 7.07 say that a pitch must be delivered or a play be made.

If these requirements are in fact met:

a- R3 "trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal";

b- F2, or any other fielder

i. "steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball," or;

ii. "touches the batter or his bat";

then F1 is charged with a balk (even if no pitch has been delivered), B is awarded 1B (a specific award, not like that in 6.08c), and the ball is dead (not delayed dead like a 'normal' OBR balk).

Makes absolutely no difference what the batter does in this situation. The rule itself defines the infraction and the penalty.

Of course, saying this immediately put this situation in my head:

R3 stealing, F1 steps off and then throws home. But F2 steps on home plate

a- before F1 disengages, or

b- after F1 disengages.

Now what? Is the sequence of events the telling factor? Or maybe a pitch is required to make 7.07 work as envisioned, even though the rule says nothing about it.

If F1 steps off legally it's now a throw, not a pitch. No balk. No CI. Could have batter's int.

[mstaylor]

Rich is right, if he steps off then 7.07 is out. If the batter steps out I can't see making the call, however his manager is going to shoot him for hanging runner out to dry. Now if he stays but doesn't swing, then call it.

[Jocko]

Rich,

It is my impression that you believe that if a batter abandons his legal position in the batter's box, he is entitled to get the INT call in our situation. If that is the case, do you believe that a batter can step entirely out of the back of the box, swing, make contact with the catcher's mitt, and still be awarded 1st base on the INT even though he was the one that caused the infraction by ending up in an illegal position?

you guys have to remember, Rich Ives is the COACH. he will always try to shade the rule in his favor. While being freakishly Rain-Man ish with rule QUOTATION, I don't generally with his opinion of rule APPLICATION. I enjoy him being here for the references he gives. I rarely agree with him on any given sitch. Look at his avatar.

just bustin your chops, buddy. You know I like arguing with you

Fishman - you don't get it. It could be my catcher or my batter. Without knowing which it is how can you claim I'm shading it?