Your thoughts

[James Walker]

Last night, me and a couple of guys I work with were talking baseball and umpiring. And the conversation went to throwing to an unoccupied base (8.05 (d)) and 7.07. The question is not on understanding either rule, but rather an interpretation. I get that you get CI because the batter had no opportunity to hit the ball or was interfered with ( ie touching) by F2. My question is the balk part. My thoughts are that because the ball never crossed the plate or the foul lines, we call balk just like if F1 drops the ball. His thought is he's throwing to an unoccupied base, which would seem to contridict 8.05 (d). Just want yalls take on it.

[Mike Prince]

I think the two are separate and you will step into a big mess if you try to combine them.  8.05 (d) deals with an act by F1, 7.07 deals with the action of F2 in a very specific situation.  They are both balks but for different reasons.

 

It's a lot easier to explain a 7.07 violation as the rule is written - the pitcher is penalized for the action of his catcher.  In 8.05 (d) the pitcher is penalized for his own action.

[James Walker]

Well, it started of with a bet on "pitcher can't throw to an unoccupied base" ( easiest bet I've ever won). And in his arguement ( a good one, imo, cause it got me thinking), he brought up 7.07. So, its my bad, should've phrased the question better. I get why we have CI, but why the balk (other than penalizing the defence for interfering with a play)?

[Rich Ives]

Well, it started of with a bet on "pitcher can't throw to an unoccupied base" ( easiest bet I've ever won). And in his arguement ( a good one, imo, cause it got me thinking), he brought up 7.07. So, its my bad, should've phrased the question better. I get why we have CI, but why the balk (other than penalizing the defence for interfering with a play)?

 

Deprived the hitter:  CI  (just like "ordinary" CI)

 

Gained an unintended advantage on the runner:  Balk  (just like an "ordinary" balk)

 

Two violations - two penalties.

[mstaylor]

The reason for 7.07 is there for one specific situation which a balk or a CI doesn't fix, it is the reason it is nicknamed the stupid R2 rule. 7.07 is when you have R2,R3 and R3 only stealing. A CI call would advance R3 and the BR but R2 is stuck because he wasn't stealing and he isn't forced. A balk would advance the runners but not the BR. Hence, 7.07 is used to advance all the runners and the BR. Any other combination of runners and the CI alone is all that is needed.