Getting it right versus conflict with partner

[MidAmUmp]

I missed that there was only a runner on 2nd when I first read it this morning.  The correct ruling is enforce the balk, award R2 3rd base and return the Batter with the previous count.

 

As far as dealing with more experienced umpires who screw up a ruling...Use some diplomacy, but get the ruling right.  When you huddle to discuss the play/ruling you need to voice your opinion.  Try doing it in the form of a question.  Something like: "It seems like I read the other day...isn't that what we have here?"  You're questioning his interpretation, but not showing up a veteran because you're asking if what you read is the same as your play.  You're #1 priority is to get the call right.  But you're also dealing with egos.  You would hope that every umpire would check his ego at the door and view everyone as equals, but a lot of umpires won't do that.  Tread lightly but get the call right.

 

Over the weekend I worked with a newer guy in our local association.  In the dressing room I asked him if he was ready and he took a deep breath, looked at me and said, "Honestly, no I'm not."  I asked why and he told me he was nervous about working with me and he'd been really struggling with his zone recently.  I told him, "No egos.  I put my pants on the same way you do.  It doesn't matter how much or how little either of us have done in the past, we're going to go out there, work hard, and have fun."  I talked with him about his zone and got him to relax.  He called a really nice game and did a good job.  Unfortunately some people would have "big timed" him and made him even more nervous and he would have had a pretty crappy day at the office.

[stl_ump]

OK... now I'm kinda of confused.  Well.. probably more than kinda...

 

Balk with R2 and HBP... does the batter go to 1st or does he stay at bat?

[ricka56]

OK... now I'm kinda of confused.  Well.. probably more than kinda...

 

Balk with R2 and HBP... does the batter go to 1st or does he stay at bat?

 

From MLBUM (emphasis added):

 

((6) If the balk is followed by a pitch that strikes the batter, call "Time" the moment the pitch

strikes the batter. Then enforce the balk unless the hit batter forces all other runners to

advance one base, in which case play proceeds without reference to the balk.

 

Unless the HBP would force all runners to advance, then B would stay at bat.

[MidAmUmp]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

[stl_ump]

 

OK... now I'm kinda of confused.  Well.. probably more than kinda...

 

Balk with R2 and HBP... does the batter go to 1st or does he stay at bat?

 

From MLBUM (emphasis added):

 

((6) If the balk is followed by a pitch that strikes the batter, call "Time" the moment the pitch

strikes the batter. Then enforce the balk unless the hit batter forces all other runners to

advance one base, in which case play proceeds without reference to the balk.

 

Unless the HBP would force all runners to advance, then B would stay at bat.

 

 

That's what I was thinking but it seemed cruel that after getting hit the batter had to stay up there and possibly get plunked again.  Oh well...

Thanks

[umpire_scott]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

 

To clarify for anyone reading this but not the entire thread the advancing of the bases has to be as a result of the what the batter did.  In my case all runners advanced one base including the batter, but R2 advanced on a steal not due to the walk.  So in my case the balk was not ignored.

[umpire_scott]

I missed that there was only a runner on 2nd when I first read it this morning.  The correct ruling is enforce the balk, award R2 3rd base and return the Batter with the previous count.

 

As far as dealing with more experienced umpires who screw up a ruling...Use some diplomacy, but get the ruling right.  When you huddle to discuss the play/ruling you need to voice your opinion.  Try doing it in the form of a question.  Something like: "It seems like I read the other day...isn't that what we have here?"  You're questioning his interpretation, but not showing up a veteran because you're asking if what you read is the same as your play.  You're #1 priority is to get the call right.  But you're also dealing with egos.  You would hope that every umpire would check his ego at the door and view everyone as equals, but a lot of umpires won't do that.  Tread lightly but get the call right.

 

Over the weekend I worked with a newer guy in our local association.  In the dressing room I asked him if he was ready and he took a deep breath, looked at me and said, "Honestly, no I'm not."  I asked why and he told me he was nervous about working with me and he'd been really struggling with his zone recently.  I told him, "No egos.  I put my pants on the same way you do.  It doesn't matter how much or how little either of us have done in the past, we're going to go out there, work hard, and have fun."  I talked with him about his zone and got him to relax.  He called a really nice game and did a good job.  Unfortunately some people would have "big timed" him and made him even more nervous and he would have had a pretty crappy day at the office.

 

I would not say it was a more experienced umpire.  I had never worked with him before.  I think he had been umpiring longer, but mostly in a small town association doing rec league stuff.  I did say that I did not think it was the coaches choice and he insisted it was.  And he had already called the coach over.  It never got into a heated discussion or anything.  In retrospect I think I should have called him over away from the coach and been more assertive with my contention of it not being the coaches choice.  In the heat of the moment I chose to allow him to kick it as I knew neither coach had any idea what the correct ruling was and I wasn't sure how steadfast he was going to be.  

[Jimurray]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

 

To clarify for anyone reading this but not the entire thread the advancing of the bases has to be as a result of the what the batter did.  In my case all runners advanced one base including the batter, but R2 advanced on a steal not due to the walk.  So in my case the balk was not ignored.

Correct unless it was wild pitch ball 4 or DTK.

[JP_blue]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

Hijacking this thread a bit, but maybe someone can explain the logic of this rule (8.06m - penalty). [Edit- rule 8.05m] On a balk, the BB is allowed (ignore the balk) only if we have R1 or R1,R2 or R1,R2,R3? But, it's not allowed with R2 or R2,R3 or R1,R3?

[grayhawk]

 

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

Hijacking this thread a bit, but maybe someone can explain the logic of this rule (8.06m - penalty). [Edit- rule 8.05m] On a balk, the BB is allowed (ignore the balk) only if we have R1 or R1,R2 or R1,R2,R3? But, it's not allowed with R2 or R2,R3 or R1,R3?

 

 

We can only disregard the balk if ALL runners, including the batter-runner advance at least one base.  With R2, R2&R3, or R1&R3, not all runners will advance (because they all wouldn't be forced by the base on balls).

[JP_blue]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

Hijacking this thread a bit, but maybe someone can explain the logic of this rule (8.06m - penalty). [Edit- rule 8.05m] On a balk, the BB is allowed (ignore the balk) only if we have R1 or R1,R2 or R1,R2,R3? But, it's not allowed with R2 or R2,R3 or R1,R3?

 

We can only disregard the balk if ALL runners, including the batter-runner advance at least one base.  With R2, R2&R3, or R1&R3, not all runners will advance (because they all wouldn't be forced by the base on balls).

I do understand the rule but don't understand the logic of allowing the BR to advance to 1st only if all runners are forced. In other words, with R1 only, the BB is allowed. But if we have R1,R3, the walk is not allowed. This doesn't make sense.

[grayhawk]

 

I do understand the rule but don't understand the logic of allowing the BR to advance to 1st only if all runners are forced. In other words, with R1 only, the BB is allowed. But if we have R1,R3, the walk is not allowed. This doesn't make sense.

 

 

Sure it makes sense.  In that scenario, R3 didn't advance.  If you disregard the balk, then R3 stays put.  If you enforce the balk, then R3 scores.

[ALStripes17]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

If yes, ignore the balk.

If no, enforce the balk.

Hijacking this thread a bit, but maybe someone can explain the logic of this rule (8.06m - penalty). [Edit- rule 8.05m] On a balk, the BB is allowed (ignore the balk) only if we have R1 or R1,R2 or R1,R2,R3? But, it's not allowed with R2 or R2,R3 or R1,R3?

We can only disregard the balk if ALL runners, including the batter-runner advance at least one base. With R2, R2&R3, or R1&R3, not all runners will advance (because they all wouldn't be forced by the base on balls).

I do understand the rule but don't understand the logic of allowing the BR to advance to 1st only if all runners are forced. In other words, with R1 only, the BB is allowed. But if we have R1,R3, the walk is not allowed. This doesn't make sense.

As a coach, I would rather have the balk in a 1st and 3rd situation anyway. Scores a run and gets my hitter (who remains at bat) out of a potential DP ground ball.

Man on 2B with a run scored and same count... or bases loaded with a new batter? I know YMMV but the rule does not hurt the offense in these situations IMO

[JP_blue]

I do understand the rule but don't understand the logic of allowing the BR to advance to 1st only if all runners are forced. In other words, with R1 only, the BB is allowed. But if we have R1,R3, the walk is not allowed. This doesn't make sense.

 

Sure it makes sense.  In that scenario, R3 didn't advance.  If you disregard the balk, then R3 stays put.  If you enforce the balk, then R3 scores.

You're absolutely right, and maybe I should have used a different situation to explain (which further complicates this rule, imo). If we have R2 only, the BB is not allowed and we have R3 after the balk is enforced and the BR still batting. If we have R1 before the balk, we would then have R2 and the BR awarded 1B on the walk. I'm not seeing why position of the runners should dictate why the balk is enforced here. If a pitcher balks and throws ball 4, the BB should be allowed or not allowed in every situation.

[grayhawk]

 

 

I do understand the rule but don't understand the logic of allowing the BR to advance to 1st only if all runners are forced. In other words, with R1 only, the BB is allowed. But if we have R1,R3, the walk is not allowed. This doesn't make sense.

 

Sure it makes sense.  In that scenario, R3 didn't advance.  If you disregard the balk, then R3 stays put.  If you enforce the balk, then R3 scores.

 

You're absolutely right, and maybe I should have used a different situation to explain (which further complicates this rule, imo). If we have R2 only, the BB is not allowed and we have R3 after the balk is enforced and the BR still batting. If we have R1 before the balk, we would then have R2 and the BR awarded 1B on the walk. I'm not seeing why position of the runners should dictate why the balk is enforced here. If a pitcher balks and throws ball 4, the BB should be allowed or not allowed in every situation.

 

 

Can't really say why it is the way it is, except that advancing runners closer to home is always seen as the goal of the offense.  In fact, they are often willing to trade an out for advancing a runner (sac bunt, sac fly).

[MooseLoop]

Given the MLBUM interpretation that the delayed dead ball caused by the balk becomes dead when the catcher catches ball four, rather than when all action on the pitch has relaxed, I can understand the logical consequences.

 

I do not understand the logic behind the interpretation.  Why deprive the offense of R2's perfectly good stolen base and the batter's nice walk down to first base because the pitcher committed a balk?

 

And another thing: what happens if the 3-x balk is followed by a wild pitch allowing a non-stealing R2 to advance to third?

[grayhawk]

 

And another thing: what happens if the 3-x balk is followed by a wild pitch allowing a non-stealing R2 to advance to third?

 

Ignore the balk.  The wild pitch is a different scenario than when F2 catches ball 4, or when he doesn't catch it, but gains possession quickly.

[maven]

I do not understand the logic behind the interpretation.  Why deprive the offense of R2's perfectly good stolen base and the batter's nice walk down to first base because the pitcher committed a balk?

 

And another thing: what happens if the 3-x balk is followed by a wild pitch allowing a non-stealing R2 to advance to third?

 

You're not depriving anyone of anything. The balk has a penalty prescribed by rule. We're not going to pile an additional penalty on the defense just in case a runner not forced to advance by the BB happens to steal on the pitch.

 

Alternatively, you could think of it in terms of the ball being dead. He might have tried to steal, but since the defense cannot by rule make a play on him, he did not in fact steal the base. The ball became dead before he completed the steal. He just has a short walk to accept his award.

 

Regarding your second question: see 8.05 AR. The ball is live after a balk and a wild pitch until possessed again, so that advance is going to count toward determining whether the balk is ignored.

[umpire_scott]

Interestingly when we allowed the coaches choice he took R1 and R2 versus R3 and batter still up.

[noumpere]

This discussion (including the confusion) is the reason FED has it as an immediate dead ball.  We here can all agree that it deprives the offense when the ball is pitched and hit for a home rune, but it sure avoids these types of plays.

[Jimurray]

I do not understand the logic behind the interpretation.  Why deprive the offense of R2's perfectly good stolen base and the batter's nice walk down to first base because the pitcher committed a balk?

 

And another thing: what happens if the 3-x balk is followed by a wild pitch allowing a non-stealing R2 to advance to third?

 

You're not depriving anyone of anything. The balk has a penalty prescribed by rule. We're not going to pile an additional penalty on the defense just in case a runner not forced to advance by the BB happens to steal on the pitch.

 

Alternatively, you could think of it in terms of the ball being dead. He might have tried to steal, but since the defense cannot by rule make a play on him, he did not in fact steal the base. The ball became dead before he completed the steal. He just has a short walk to accept his award.

 

Regarding your second question: see 8.05 AR. The ball is live after a balk and a wild pitch until possessed again, so that advance is going to count toward determining whether the balk is ignored.

After a wild pitch time is not called until all play has ceased. That is when a fielder has possession of the ball in the infield and all runners have ceased trying to advance.

[afaber12]

 

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

 

To clarify for anyone reading this but not the entire thread the advancing of the bases has to be as a result of the what the batter did.  In my case all runners advanced one base including the batter, but R2 advanced on a steal not due to the walk.  So in my case the balk was not ignored.

 

 

Not quite. If R2 (and no other runners on) is stealing on a 3-x pitch called for ball 4, as long as R2 reaches 3rd safely then the balk is ignored: BR has reached first and all runners have safely advanced at least one base.

 

You don't have to worry about how any of the runners advanced because that part is irrelevant. Its only a question of how far if at all they advanced. If they each got at least one base safely then ignore the balk. If any of them didn't get one base then enforce the balk.

[Jimurray]

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

 

To clarify for anyone reading this but not the entire thread the advancing of the bases has to be as a result of the what the batter did.  In my case all runners advanced one base including the batter, but R2 advanced on a steal not due to the walk.  So in my case the balk was not ignored.

 

Not quite. If R2 (and no other runners on) is stealing on a 3-x pitch called for ball 4, as long as R2 reaches 3rd safely then the balk is ignored: BR has reached first and all runners have safely advanced at least one base.

 

You don't have to worry about how any of the runners advanced because that part is irrelevant. Its only a question of how far if at all they advanced. If they each got at least one base safely then ignore the balk. If any of them didn't get one base then enforce the balk.

This is not correct by rule and/interp. The 3-x pitch must be wild or DTK to allow R2 to remain at 3B and ignore the balk. I used to scoff at whole umpire chapters that would instruct their umpires to give the coach his choice on a balk because the balk rule was too implicated. I'm beginning to rethink my scoff.

[afaber12]

 

 

 

The question you need to ask is -

Did all runners, including the B/R, advance 1 base?

 

If yes, ignore the balk.

 

If no, enforce the balk.

 

To clarify for anyone reading this but not the entire thread the advancing of the bases has to be as a result of the what the batter did.  In my case all runners advanced one base including the batter, but R2 advanced on a steal not due to the walk.  So in my case the balk was not ignored.

 

 

Not quite. If R2 (and no other runners on) is stealing on a 3-x pitch called for ball 4, as long as R2 reaches 3rd safely then the balk is ignored: BR has reached first and all runners have safely advanced at least one base.

 

You don't have to worry about how any of the runners advanced because that part is irrelevant. Its only a question of how far if at all they advanced. If they each got at least one base safely then ignore the balk. If any of them didn't get one base then enforce the balk.

 

This is not correct by rule and/interp. The 3-x pitch must be wild or DTK to allow R2 to remain at 3B and ignore the balk. I used to scoff at whole umpire chapters that would instruct their umpires to give the coach his choice on a balk because the balk rule was too implicated. I'm beginning to rethink my scoff.

 

 

In OBR, under 8.05:

 

Penalty: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

 

There's no reference to the runners' advancement being required to be of any type, only that they advance. Even the batter's own advancement can be of any type; though particular ways are listed they're followed by "... or otherwise ...". And there's no list of any kind for how the runners are supposed to advance, only that they do. Likewise the PBUC manual's section "Penalty For Balk" (section 8.8 in the edition I have) doesn't specify that advancements must be of certain types or only in certain ways. What interpretation are you referring to?

[noumpere]

We've been through it on the previous 47 posts.  The advancement needs to as a result of the walk (or other item), assuming the pitch is caught.

 

Maybe it's different in Australia.