Balk Call

[Concernedcitizen2]

Sorry if this has been posted before.  

 

Alrighty, I can see the balk on the 1st and 3rd play.  I think it's a clear issue of stepping more towards home than first as his the pitchers' right feet look to land fairly close to the left foot in terms of the opening you can see between the feet.

 

However, I'm not sure the balk on the second one.  It starts at 2:26.  Is he coming set twice? Is he not coming to a full stop and coming set?

 

[BigUmp56]

I think that in both #1 and #3 calls the pitchers were balked for the free foot crossing the back edge of the rubber. It looked to me like there was sufficient distance and direction gained toward first base in both cases. The second one was balked for the slight movement and second re-set, but it was really close to me. Probably not one I'd call in an amateur game, and I don't think it would be called in MLB either.

 

 

Tim.

[maven]

First, pitching is very different in Korea and Japan, and the restrictions on pitching are enforced somewhat differently. I would be reluctant to import any traditions of enforcement from this video into your games (unless you happen to be working in Korea or Japan, of course).

 

Second, that confab after the first balk goes on a long time. Aren't you glad that step balks are non-arguable in MLB?

 

Now, the first balk: F1 is clearly moving toward the plate. If you look at the replay from the 1B stands, (around 2:00 in) you can see everything moving toward the plate. His foot goes toward 1B, but his weight is moving so much toward the plate that he must immediately pick it up and move it to catch his momentum. That's a failure to step to the base.

 

The second looks like a double set (technically, start/stop). It's pretty tight, but again be careful what you import from this video.

 

The third is a great example of stepping toward the plate and throwing to the base. In a 2-umpire game, PU must catch this, as it confers a huge advantage on the defense if you let it go.

[treydawgmt]

Yes, the first and third calls I think are both for not gaining distance/direction to the base.  The second I see the double set, but it's really ticky tacky.

 

I'm very glad I don't umpire in Japan/Korea.  I've seen plenty of videos where the umpire makes a (correct) call, gets yelled at for 20 minutes, and apologizes to the crowd.  It's a WHOLE different ball game over there.  And one I don't wanna deal with!

[Concernedcitizen2]

Now that you bring that up, interested as to what you guys think of having umpire's able to make announcements to the crowd via a mic like they do in Japan.  So if it's a call that's not obvious (umpire interference, batter with a foot out of the box at contact etc.) they can tell the crowd.  I can think of a few times I've been at the park and have no idea what the call was (people at home can usually figure it out through replays).

 

So what would you say to a Japan style umpire with a mic (similiar to an NFL ref)?

[Pete Peterson Sr]

Now that you bring that up, interested as to what you guys think of having umpire's able to make announcements to the crowd via a mic like they do in Japan.  So if it's a call that's not obvious (umpire interference, batter with a foot out of the box at contact etc.) they can tell the crowd.  I can think of a few times I've been at the park and have no idea what the call was (people at home can usually figure it out through replays).

 

So what would you say to a Japan style umpire with a mic (similiar to an NFL ref)?

 

Domo origato....that's what I'd say to him.....

[Concernedcitizen2]

マジã‹ï¼Ÿï¼

[BigUmp56]

I've gone back and looked at these again. I agree with Maven that the third one was definitely a step balk. No doubt that he stepped more toward home than first. But in the first one I think he gained enough distance and direction toward first. Distance is defined as simply as not putting the free foot down in the same place, or  worse, placing it behind where it started. That didn't happen here, so he gained enough distance by rule. Direction to first is defined as stepping toward the first base side of the 45' mark on the baseline. The overhead view shows to me that he did just that. All that said, I noticed the second time that I watched it that the umpire demonstrated a step balk in the first one, which I think was a little picky. Maybe his body's momentum started him a little toward home, but it looked to me that there was no question that his free foot passed the back edge of the rubber. That balk call would have been much easier to sell.

 

JMO

 

 

Tim.

[maven]

The overhead view shows to me that he did just that. All that said, I noticed the second time that I watched it that the umpire demonstrated a step balk in the first one, which I think was a little picky. Maybe his body's momentum started him a little toward home, but it looked to me that there was no question that his free foot passed the back edge of the rubber. That balk call would have been much easier to sell.

 

Tim, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I don't want to belabor the point. But let me just add a couple brief notes for your consideration.

 

1. I agree that the initial step was to 1B. But as you know, the "step directly to the base" requirement prohibits any movement toward the plate. This guy's movement to the plate was NOT slight: he almost fell over because so much of his momentum was moving to the plate, and he had to reset his foot immediately to stop that momentum. Are you discounting the movement to the plate and hanging your hat on the "distance and direction" of the foot alone?

 

2. The note in 8.05 provides a criterion for judging borderline cases: where F1's intent is to deceive, you should rule in favor of a balk (note for newer umpires: judging intent is required only for BORDERLINE CASES). If you regard this as a borderline case, you should consider intent. F1 clearly did deceive the runner, who took off.

 

Thoughts?

[SJA]

And to think the Japanese started playing professional baseball in 1934.

 

:-)

[BigUmp56]

The overhead view shows to me that he did just that. All that said, I noticed the second time that I watched it that the umpire demonstrated a step balk in the first one, which I think was a little picky. Maybe his body's momentum started him a little toward home, but it looked to me that there was no question that his free foot passed the back edge of the rubber. That balk call would have been much easier to sell.

 

Tim, you're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I don't want to belabor the point. But let me just add a couple brief notes for your consideration.

 

1. I agree that the initial step was to 1B. But as you know, the "step directly to the base" requirement prohibits any movement toward the plate. This guy's movement to the plate was NOT slight: he almost fell over because so much of his momentum was moving to the plate, and he had to reset his foot immediately to stop that momentum. Are you discounting the movement to the plate and hanging your hat on the "distance and direction" of the foot alone?

 

2. The note in 8.05 provides a criterion for judging borderline cases: where F1's intent is to deceive, you should rule in favor of a balk (note for newer umpires: judging intent is required only for BORDERLINE CASES). If you regard this as a borderline case, you should consider intent. F1 clearly did deceive the runner, who took off.

 

Thoughts?

No, I agree with you that it was a step balk for his initial movement toward home. I have to admit that I don't see it as a big of a movement as you do. I do think the free foot passing the back edge would have been an easier call to sell.

Tim.

[catsbackr]

マジã‹ï¼Ÿï¼

I was just about to say the same thing.