Balk Question

[Jocko]

Hard to say without seeing it.

[treydawgmt]

In my experience from watching MLB they usually are NOT setting twice. The first time, some leg or another is still moving. Something moves the whole time until they come "set" the second time. This is really only one set then. It might be the smallest of movements, but you can't be set if your leg is twitching.

[umpire_scott]

In my experience from watching MLB they usually are NOT setting twice. The first time, some leg or another is still moving. Something moves the whole time until they come "set" the second time. This is really only one set then. It might be the smallest of movements, but you can't be set if your leg is twitching.

But if we use that as the standard for being set then I'd be calling a ton of balks.

[treydawgmt]

In my experience from watching MLB they usually are NOT setting twice. The first time, some leg or another is still moving. Something moves the whole time until they come "set" the second time. This is really only one set then. It might be the smallest of movements, but you can't be set if your leg is twitching.

But if we use that as the standard for being set then I'd be calling a ton of balks.

I'll agree at the level most of us call, we would have tons of balks if we called it a balk if their leg was still twitching or something. However, if every time you see someone that comes "set" twice, make sure something isn't moving one of those times. If his leg, arm, etc, is still moving the first time (or this could happen the second time and not the first for that matter) then he's only coming set once. Now the first time he deviates from that and comes to a COMPLETE stop twice, balk him.

I'm not advocating calling balks because 12 year old Johnny think's he's stopping and his leg is moving ever so slightly, but I think this will help us figure out the "2 set" or not for calling a balk.

[mstaylor]

Calling balks is part science, part art. The younger ages get a lot of leniency but you still have to call the elephant balks. As they get older you have to get more technical. At the pro level they let more obvious stuff go and balk the very technical.

[umpire_scott]

Here is a video of Clayton Kershaw pitching from the stretch. This illustrates to a point what I was talking about in my OP. If a pitcher came to the top just like Kershaw does, but then did not come set at the chest like he does would you call a balk for not coming set? Most umpires that I work with would think balking a pitcher for not coming set for that would be "hunting for balks". But if like Kershaw he came set at the chest would you then balk him for coming set twice? And then what if he altered his motion, sometimes coming set at the chest and other times just bouncing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CFy43RV-wQ

[UmpJM]

I'm only seeing one stop in that video (at his chest).

At the risk of repeating myself, whether or not he "alters" his motion from one pitch to the next is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he has balked.

JM

[treydawgmt]

I'm with JM. I don't *think* he stops at the top. It's darn close, but doesn't really appear to come to a complete and discernible stop at the top. (Which he clearly does at the chest.)

[umpire_scott]

JM - I understand what you are saying regarding altering his motion, but it's relelvant for this particular discussion. I agree that in this particular pitch I only see one stop (at the chest). But the non-stop at the top is close. So let's say for arguments sake that the non-stop at the top was just long enough for you to allow it as a stop. Then he came set at the chest. Would you balk him for coming set twice? The importance of the "altering" of his motion is only relevant because the pitcher that I had was not coming set at the chest like Kershaw. He was going right into his pitching motion from the initial pause. When he did it I thought in my mind that it was really close to a balk, but I'll allow it. He also came to the inital pause much slower than Kershaw. Then he all of a sudden started coming set at the chest on some of his pitches, just like Kershaw. And his pause at the top was always right on the border of whether it was discernable or not.

[umpire_scott]

I'm with JM. I don't *think* he stops at the top. It's darn close, but doesn't really appear to come to a complete and discernible stop at the top. (Which he clearly does at the chest.)

But let's say he never came set at the chest. I'll bet under those circumstances most umpires would say it was close enough at the top and not go "hunting" for the balk. And Kershaw does this the same way every time so it's easy to accept the first as not being set and the second as being set.

[UmpJM]

Scott,

If, in your judgement, he stops at the top and then stops again at the chest, it's a balk.

If, on one pitch, he stops at the top, and then "bounces" at the chest and then, on the next pitch, doesn't quite stop at the top and then does stop at the chest (or vice versa) I got "nothing".

JM

[umpire_scott]

Scott,

If, in your judgement, he stops at the top and then stops again at the chest, it's a balk.

If, on one pitch, he stops at the top, and then "bounces" at the chest and then, on the next pitch, doesn't quite stop at the top and then does stop at the chest (or vice versa) I got "nothing".

JM

I get your point JM. I just need to each time look at each "pause" individually and determine whether or not I judge it to be discernible or not on it's own merits.

[UmpJM]

Exactly!! I believe you've got it.

JM

[noumpere]

Sometimes you need to umpire.