Tanaka balking?

[etignor11]

I watched the first outing for M. Tanaka of the Yankees on Saturday. I'm a big Yankees fan so I was very excited to see what he's got against MLB hitters.

BUT my initial take away was that it looks like he comes close to balking when he's in the stretch. He appears to come set twice. Once at his belt and then again at his chest. If I was doing a high school game and had a kid do this, I would probably be inclined to want to call it.

You guys think he gets away with it because his name is Tanaka? I've got it on video and will try to post Ina few minutes. I was surprised no one else has caught this yet.

[Thunderheads]

Will have to see it Ed, ...but .... he may have a quick "double-set" which they allow in the Show as long as he does it every time ........ post the video though when you can

[maven]

With no runners on, this would be completely ignored.

 

I'm guessing that the video will show that (probably the first) "set" is some sort of "bounce," where he is merely changing directions and not coming to a "complete stop."

[BigUmpire]

He is.

Typical Japanese pitcher.

[etignor11]

Here's the link to the video on my Youtube page.  It's about 5 min long and gives several examples (when the camera angle is right).

 

[Thunderheads]

thats' a bounce as Maven points out ...and what I was talking about basically

[JaxRolo]

Just from looking at the first one I saw F1 Swaying his hips. So he was still moving. Then he came set on the second time.

[maven]

He comes set at the chest. Bring the hands together at the waist is not his set.

 

In pro ball, this will never get balked as a double set (technically, a start/stop balk).

 

There is rule guidance in OBR here: when in doubt, we may assess whether he intends to deceive the runner. Intent to deceive is ONLY a "tie-breaker" question, when we are not clear about the legality of a move. 8.05(m) COMMENT

 

I would not balk it in a HS game (or below, either), and for the same reason.

[alex7]

Think the only time you'd consider balking it is if he switches it up and pitches after his "set" from the waist.  Now you'd have a problem.

[noumpere]

Ive said this before and Ill say it again -- you cant learn a whole lot about balks by watching pro ball, especially MLB.  They typically don't do the stuff that's done to balk at the levels we do and the stuff they generally do is too slight to be called at our levels and theres a whole lot of "usual movement" interpretation added to what is seen / called.

[etignor11]

This just drives me nuts because I'm with you guys in the fact that I do think he intends to come set at the chest and he does it every time so there's no deception meant on the runner but dog gone it if he doesn't pause slightly at the waist from time to time.  Enough that I know some high school coach would be yelling his lungs out for a balk.

[Mike Prince]

Good thing he doesn't play HS ball then...

[noumpere]

  Enough that I know some high school coach would be yelling his lungs out for a balk.

Not for long, at least not where I could hear him

[Chris Hickman]

Legal

[johnnyg08]

whether he intends to deceive the runner.

The position of pitcher is ALL about deception.

There is legal deception and illegal deception.   

[maven]

 

whether he intends to deceive the runner.

The position of pitcher is ALL about deception.

There is legal deception and illegal deception.   

 

 

Please quote the entire sentence if you're going to quibble. Your subtle distinction has nothing to do with 8.05 COMMENT.

[johnnyg08]

I intentionally quoted what I quoted.  

 

To say the pitcher is being deceptive means nothing when it comes to the rules. 

[maven]

To say the pitcher is being deceptive means nothing when it comes to the rules. 

 

You are mistaken. If you were right, 8.05 COMMENT would be unintelligible and vacuous.

[johnnyg08]

Okay, I'll play. Coach comes out and asks why you balked his pitcher?

Umpire replies: because he was being deceptive.

Coach replies: Isn't that the point?

I know you know the rule Maven. But we can't respond to a coach that "your pitcher was being deceptive"

Legal deception is the whole point of the pitcher position.

[maven]

Okay, I'll play. Coach comes out and asks why you balked his pitcher?

Umpire replies: because he was being deceptive.

Coach replies: Isn't that the point?

I know you know the rule Maven. But we can't respond to a coach that "your pitcher was being deceptive"

Legal deception is the whole point of the pitcher position.

 

OK. You're not following along today, and nothing you've said actually addresses the rule I posted.

 

8.05 COMMENT provides a "tie breaker" regarding a questionable move. If in doubt, umpires assess whether F1 intended to deceive (or was just clumsy, or dumb, or whatever). Please read it. If you have a different account of what it says, I'd be happy to think about it.

 

Two different skills are involved here: one is determining whether a balk occurred. The other is explaining the call to a coach. If I have to explain the balk to a coach, I will explain it in terms of the move, not the intent. "Coach, he tried to step off legally but failed, since his foot did not land directly behind the rubber." The move is the balk, not the intent.

 

But the intent can be relevant to determining whether an odd step-off is a balk: sure, it looked clumsy, but the runner started to go, and F1 came up and threw a seed to F3 to pick him off. As soon as he gets that throw off, I'm calling a balk.

 

"Legal deception is the whole point of the pitcher position." The whole point? Isn't there something to do with pitching to the batter in there?

 

Please save your straw men for somebody else.

[Thunderheads]

 

Okay, I'll play. Coach comes out and asks why you balked his pitcher?

Umpire replies: because he was being deceptive.

Coach replies: Isn't that the point?

I know you know the rule Maven. But we can't respond to a coach that "your pitcher was being deceptive"

Legal deception is the whole point of the pitcher position.

 

OK. You're not following along today, and nothing you've said actually addresses the rule I posted.

 

8.05 COMMENT provides a "tie breaker" regarding a questionable move. If in doubt, umpires assess whether F1 intended to deceive (or was just clumsy, or dumb, or whatever). Please read it. If you have a different account of what it says, I'd be happy to think about it.

 

Two different skills are involved here: one is determining whether a balk occurred. The other is explaining the call to a coach. If I have to explain the balk to a coach, I will explain it in terms of the move, not the intent. "Coach, he tried to step off legally but failed, since his foot did not land directly behind the rubber." The move is the balk, not the intent.

 

But the intent can be relevant to determining whether an odd step-off is a balk: sure, it looked clumsy, but the runner started to go, and F1 came up and threw a seed to F3 to pick him off. As soon as he gets that throw off, I'm calling a balk.

 

"Legal deception is the whole point of the pitcher position." The whole point? Isn't there something to do with pitching to the batter in there?

 

Please save your straw men for somebody else.

 

I think we can all ascertain that johnnyg08 is referring to the stretch position and holding runners on, ....can't we?

[basejester]

If we include deception of the batter, then that's mostly true.

[johnnyg08]

"Legal deception is the whole point of the pitcher position." The whole point? Isn't there something to do with pitching to the batter in there?

If the pitcher isn't deceiving the batter, why does he throw curve balls? changes ups? different arm slots? off speed w/ same arm action?

They are all forms of deception.

[ricka56]

8.05 COMMENT provides a "tie breaker" regarding a questionable move. If in doubt, umpires assess whether F1 intended to deceive (or was just clumsy, or dumb, or whatever).

I've never had use for any tie-breaker on balk decisions and always considered this "deception" verbiage in the RB to be unfortunate, misleading and the source of a baseball myth.

[grayhawk]

 

8.05 COMMENT provides a "tie breaker" regarding a questionable move. If in doubt, umpires assess whether F1 intended to deceive (or was just clumsy, or dumb, or whatever).

I've never had use for any tie-breaker on balk decisions and always considered this "deception" verbiage in the RB to be unfortunate, misleading and the source of a baseball myth.

 

 

Hard to believe, but I agree with both you and Maven on this.  Maven's point that the purpose of the deception verbiage is as a tiebreaker only is valid.  You're point that you've never had any use for it as a tiebreaker is valid too.

 

In a game about 3 years ago, the pitcher was in the set position and moved to disengage.  He caught a spike on the rubber which stopped his momentum, then he was able to recover and complete his disengagement.  By rule, it was a balk, but there was no intent to deceive, runners weren't moving and he didn't look to make any kind of throw.  I didn't balk him.

 

That said, I would NEVER use the word "deception" in my explanation to a coach.  It's a slippery slope that I prefer to avoid.