Jump to content
  • 0

Awards on balks


BigUmpire
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4053 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I didn't say anything about the catcher catching the pitch.  If it makes it better, make it read specifically that it was a wild pitch or a past ball.  R1 ends up at third.  IGNORE the balk for the runner, but ACKNOWLEDGE the balk for the batter (the count remains the same as before the ptich -- here 0-0)

That's incorrect. The balk is enforced in your case, but since the runner advanced there is no further penalty.

 

No rule supports differential enforcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

I didn't say anything about the catcher catching the pitch.  If it makes it better, make it read specifically that it was a wild pitch or a past ball.  R1 ends up at third.  IGNORE the balk for the runner, but ACKNOWLEDGE the balk for the batter (the count remains the same as before the ptich -- here 0-0)

That's incorrect. The balk is enforced in your case, but since the runner advanced there is no further penalty.

 

No rule supports differential enforcement.

NCAA 9-3 Pen 3 AR 1 and or 3 (one of those is what I quoted before). 

 

OBR: PBUC 6.7-8

 

Both contain nearly the identical language above.

 

Other than that, though, you are correct that "no rule supports differential enforcement."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

 

I didn't say anything about the catcher catching the pitch.  If it makes it better, make it read specifically that it was a wild pitch or a past ball.  R1 ends up at third.  IGNORE the balk for the runner, but ACKNOWLEDGE the balk for the batter (the count remains the same as before the ptich -- here 0-0)

That's incorrect. The balk is enforced in your case, but since the runner advanced there is no further penalty.

 

No rule supports differential enforcement.

NCAA 9-3 Pen 3 AR 1 and or 3 (one of those is what I quoted before). 

 

OBR: PBUC 6.7-8

 

Both contain nearly the identical language above.

 

Other than that, though, you are correct that "no rule supports differential enforcement."

That's not differential enforcement. The balk is enforced in those cases, but since the runners reached their advance base there is no further penalty. Indeed, part of enforcing the balk is returning the batter with the same count.  That is not in any sense "ignoring" the balk.

 

Though 'acknowledge' appears in the NCAA AR, that's not a defined term. Penalties are either enforced or ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...