ALL R.A. DICKEY BALKS in ONE THREAD

[maven]

PU got talked out of a pretty solid no-step balk. We give F1 some flexibility in the timing of disengaging prior to separating the hands (as the other thread points out), but this is pretty egregious.

 

You can see in this image that his hands are nearly in a position to throw, and he has just picked UP his foot. His foot should be DOWN, disengaged, before the hands separate.

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised to see MLB tighten up this call on Dickey and others who use this move in the coming season. It's a pretty big advantage for a pitcher, and by rule the only time we may use the pitcher's intent to deceive as a test of a balk is when we are in doubt about the legality of the move (8.05 COMMENT).

[conbo61]

Is the move that disengaged the pivot foot considered "gaining distance" toward second? I wouldn't think so.

[Haid D' Salaami]

If the pitcher steps off he does not need to "gain ground"

[Jimurray]

If the pitcher steps off he does not need to "gain ground"

The question is, while FED and NCAA require the pivot foot to land before separation, does OBR require it since it is not in the rules. And yes in FED and NCAA there is some leeway given if it happens fast enough.

Edited to add: there is a WUM play that says the pitcher may not remove his hands from the ball before properly disengaging the rubber.

[Rich Ives]

If the pitcher picks up his pivot foot first he's either starting a pick or disengaging. In either case I'm headed back to the base. Anyone deceived by this is naive at best.

[noumpere]

By the book it's deception because "step-back-and-throw" is faster than "step back, then throw".

[maven]

If the pitcher picks up his pivot foot first he's either starting a pick or disengaging. In either case I'm headed back to the base. Anyone deceived by this is naive at best.

 

As you're aware, Rich, 8.05 COMMENT references F1's intent, not the success of his effort to deceive.

 

As usual, when mentioning this comment I feel compelled to remind everyone that the pitcher's intent is relevant ONLY when the move is borderline. In such cases, ugly is not illegal; intent to deceive makes borderline moves illegal.

 

Obviously, every perfectly legal pickoff move exhibits intent to deceive, and that intent does not make the move illegal.

[Rich Ives]

 

If the pitcher picks up his pivot foot first he's either starting a pick or disengaging. In either case I'm headed back to the base. Anyone deceived by this is naive at best.

 

As you're aware, Rich, 8.05 COMMENT references F1's intent, not the success of his effort to deceive.

 

As usual, when mentioning this comment I feel compelled to remind everyone that the pitcher's intent is relevant ONLY when the move is borderline. In such cases, ugly is not illegal; intent to deceive makes borderline moves illegal.

 

Obviously, every perfectly legal pickoff move exhibits intent to deceive, and that intent does not make the move illegal.

 

 

All I'm saying is that moving the pivot foot shouldn't deceive anyone. Anyone (including pitchers) that got to MLB should know it'll not deceive anyone. Given that, how could you say there's intent? It's like thinking Joe tried to fake out other drivers by not stopping at a green light.

[Jimurray]

 

 

If the pitcher picks up his pivot foot first he's either starting a pick or disengaging. In either case I'm headed back to the base. Anyone deceived by this is naive at best.

 

As you're aware, Rich, 8.05 COMMENT references F1's intent, not the success of his effort to deceive.

 

As usual, when mentioning this comment I feel compelled to remind everyone that the pitcher's intent is relevant ONLY when the move is borderline. In such cases, ugly is not illegal; intent to deceive makes borderline moves illegal.

 

Obviously, every perfectly legal pickoff move exhibits intent to deceive, and that intent does not make the move illegal.

 

 

All I'm saying is that moving the pivot foot shouldn't deceive anyone. Anyone (including pitchers) that got to MLB should know it'll not deceive anyone. Given that, how could you say there's intent? It's like thinking Joe tried to fake out other drivers by not stopping at a green light.

 

Moving the pivot foot shouldn't but separating the hands might. Not the case in the OP though.

[UmpireFever]

Gaining distance is only taken into consideration when the pitcher is in contact with the rubber and is only relevant to his free foot. Nothing to do with his pivot foot.

[Thunderheads]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v72494683

[ALStripes17]

Didn't disengage (completely), nor step with his free foot towards 2B.

Great call.

[GoodOldGus]

Pretty straight forward!

[renegadewolf]

So much for it's impossible to balk going to second.....  Leave it up to the Jays.

87

[Mick]

I guess so.  I probably never would have spotted that in HS ball.

[maven]

So much for it's impossible to balk going to second..... Leave it up to the Jays.

87

Not a balk to second. It's a balk for disengaging improperly. The balk was over before he went to 2B.

[zm1283]

That isn't even close to a legal disengagement. Good call by Nelson. 

[noumpere]

So, what if the step with the right foot had been, say, 12" farther (clear of the rubber)? 

[maven]

So, what if the step with the right foot had been, say, 12" farther (clear of the rubber)? 

 

Oooh, tricky.

[BuckeyeMike]

So was it a balk for the hands coming apart prior to the pivot foot landing off the rubber?

 

Or was it a balk for the pivot foot not clearing the rubber enough?

 

It's really hard to see if that pivot was touching the rubber or not.  I have to think this was for the hands.   To me, this isn't as cut and dry.  

[maven]

He did both. The hands came apart before the pivot foot was even picked up, much less put down:

 

 

And nothing but the toes of his pivot foot landed behind the rubber:

 

[zm1283]

The video shows a camera angle from behind the third base dugout and you can see his foot land directly on top of the rubber. It may be the same angle maven is screenshotting above. 

[maven]

The video shows a camera angle from behind the third base dugout and you can see his foot land directly on top of the rubber. It may be the same angle maven is screenshotting above. 

 

Yup, and it's a lot clearer than the screenshots.

[Guest bobby]

 

Balk or no balk. This was confuses me. I know the umps reversed their call....but what do you guys think?

[Majordave]

Second discussion about RA Dickey's 2B move this week.

See other video and discussion here:

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/61402-ra-dickey-balk/#entry265101

I haven't really dug in on it yet.