Balk or no balk?

[basejester]

I think the interpretation that drives a balk call on this play is solving a non-problem.  How is this solving a problem with the rules?  I mean, the runner was very nearly put out on this throw.  How can we regard this throw as a feint or a waste of time?  I have no criticism for the umpires making this call in this play in the MLB, but there's no way I'm balking this in amateur baseball.

[Jimurray]

Ruh roh. Steve won't like that.

 

I'm okay with it because F3 didn't move until the ball was out of F1's hand.  I think that could be judged that there was no play in the works and F3 was surprised by the throw.  The throw also wasn't to the bag, so it didn't pass that test either.  I wouldn't have called it, however.

Konerko was definately surprised

Konerko's deke was too good.

[maven]

I think the interpretation that drives a balk call on this play is solving a non-problem.  How is this solving a problem with the rules?  I mean, the runner was very nearly put out on this throw.  How can we regard this throw as a feint or a waste of time?  I have no criticism for the umpires making this call in this play in the MLB, but there's no way I'm balking this in amateur baseball.

 

Feints to 1B are not prohibited because they're a waste of time. They're prohibited because they confer too great an advantage on the defense: allowing feints to 1B would significantly decrease the number of successful steals of 2B.

[Rich Ives]

 

" . . precludes the possibility . ." ?  That means it's impossible. That thought is nonsense.

Not nonsense. It's impossible by interpretation. Any pitcher in a legal pitching position is BY DEFINITION facing the batter.

 

 

 

 

If it's there by definition then why is part of the requirements?

 

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free.

 

The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands

facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of,

the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to

a complete stop.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

" . . precludes the possibility . ." ?  That means it's impossible. That thought is nonsense.

Not nonsense. It's impossible by interpretation. Any pitcher in a legal pitching position is BY DEFINITION facing the batter.

 

 

 

 

If it's there by definition then why is part of the requirements?

 

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free.

 

The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands

facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of,

the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to

a complete stop.

 

isn't' this supporting maven's comment?

[maven]

 

 

" . . precludes the possibility . ." ?  That means it's impossible. That thought is nonsense.

Not nonsense. It's impossible by interpretation. Any pitcher in a legal pitching position is BY DEFINITION facing the batter.

 

 

 

 

If it's there by definition then why is part of the requirements?

 

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free.

 

The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands

facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of,

the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to

a complete stop.

 

 

Because the rules evolved with lots of gaps and overlaps.

 

And thank you for making my point.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

" . . precludes the possibility . ." ?  That means it's impossible. That thought is nonsense.

Not nonsense. It's impossible by interpretation. Any pitcher in a legal pitching position is BY DEFINITION facing the batter.

 

 

 

 

If it's there by definition then why is part of the requirements?

 

The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in

contact with the pitcher’s plate and the other foot free.

 

The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands

facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of,

the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to

a complete stop.

 

 

Because the rules evolved with lots of gaps and overlaps.

 

And thank you for making my point.

 

....I thought I read this right

[grayhawk]

I think the interpretation that drives a balk call on this play is solving a non-problem.  How is this solving a problem with the rules?  I mean, the runner was very nearly put out on this throw.  How can we regard this throw as a feint or a waste of time?  I have no criticism for the umpires making this call in this play in the MLB, but there's no way I'm balking this in amateur baseball.

 

Without the balk call, R1 wasn't "nearly" put out, he was put out.

[basejester]

 

I think the interpretation that drives a balk call on this play is solving a non-problem.  How is this solving a problem with the rules?  I mean, the runner was very nearly put out on this throw.  How can we regard this throw as a feint or a waste of time?  I have no criticism for the umpires making this call in this play in the MLB, but there's no way I'm balking this in amateur baseball.

 

Feints to 1B are not prohibited because they're a waste of time. They're prohibited because they confer too great an advantage on the defense: allowing feints to 1B would significantly decrease the number of successful steals of 2B.

 

I don't mean to imply that feints are prohibited because they waste time.  They're two different rules, neither of which I can construct a reasonable argument for it applying.

 

Feints to first are prohibited under 8.05 (b)

 

(b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to

complete the throw;

 

The video is clearly not a violation of the plain English of this rule -- it's neither a feint nor did he fail to complete the throw.  The standard that's applied here is that the first baseman didn't move first.  What does this have to do with any rule, or for that matter, interpretation?

 

Here's the bit from the 2012 MLBUM:

 

The pitcher shall be charged with a balk if, while in contact with the rubber, he throws to the first baseman who is either in front of or behind first base and obviously not making an attempt at retiring the runner at first base.

 

I guess the interpretation of this interpretation is that the first baseman off the bag has to be moving toward the base prior to the throw.  So, here we are ruling that the first baseman is not making an attempt to retire the runner (even though he retires the runner.) 

 

How does this trace back to a rule?

 

 

 

(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;

 

First base is occupied, so it's not this rule.  It's also for the purpose of making a play, so again, not this.

 

(h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game;

Rule 8.05(h) Comment: Rule 8.05(h) shall not apply when a warning is given pursuant to Rule 8.02© (which prohibits intentional delay of a game by throwing to fielders not in an attempt to put a runner out).

 

8.02

(c ) Intentionally delay the game by throwing the ball to players other than the catcher,when the batter is in position, except in an attempt to retire a runner.

PENALTY: If, after warning by the umpire, such delaying action is repeated, the

pitcher shall be removed from the game.

 

That doesn't apply either.

[maven]

He did not step and throw TO A BASE.

[basejester]

He did not step and throw TO A BASE.

 

OK.  So, I think you're arguing that it's not an action listed under 8.01 (b), so it's a balk.  Then the other team's pitcher (with R2) throws to the shortstop off of second base.  The OC wants to know why this isn't a balk.  What do we tell him?

[johnnyg08]

Tell him that it is impossible to balk to second base and to go back to the dugout.

[Tksjewelry]

I'm confused as to the reasoning for the balk. It looked to me that had F3 not caught the ball it would have gone right over B1 or darn near it. Are they saying because F3 broke late for B1 that he was not attempting to retire the runner?

[basejester]

Tell him that it is impossible to balk to second base and to go back to the dugout.

Like, "Because I said so.  Go to your room"?

[johnnyg08]

 

Tell him that it is impossible to balk to second base and to go back to the dugout.

Like, "Because I said so.  Go to your room"?

 

 

Okay, how would you answer it?  I will not be quoting that exact scenario from the rule book.  Ready, go:

[johnnyg08]

Here's one screen shot:

 

 

[johnnyg08]

MLBUM

 

 

[basejester]

Okay, how would you answer it?  I will not be quoting that exact scenario from the rule book.  Ready, go:

 

I'm going to say there's no rule prohibiting it, so he's good, I guess.  It's only in the context of first balking the play in the video that I have the problem (which I'm saying I wouldn't do), because it's not clear from a rules standpoint how they differ.

[basejester]

MLBUM

Right.  This interpretation is not consistent with balking the play in the video due to omission from the list of legal actions in 8.01 (b).

 

From the set position, a pitcher can:

1. Throw to a base

2. Pitch to the batter.

3. Disengage by stepping backward with his pivot foot.

4.  Throw anywhere in the middle of the infield <----  Notice how this is not in 8.01 (b).

[Jimurray]

I'm confused as to the reasoning for the balk. It looked to me that had F3 not caught the ball it would have gone right over B1 or darn near it. Are they saying because F3 broke late for B1 that he was not attempting to retire the runner?

That was my opinion (ball would have gone over 1B) in this thread: http://umpire-empire.com/index.php/topic/47282-balk-throwing-to-an-uncovered-first-base/

Why @johnnygo8 regurgitated this play I don't know. You either follow Evans or Wendelstedt and you will be right no matter what. Even Wendelstedt allows the umpire to judge if the throw is to 1B when F3 makes a catch while making a play on R1 back into 1B. I think the thread has his reference play that states this.

[johnnyg08]

I didn't realize that it was already on here.  @Thunderheads is going to let me have it tomorrow morning!  

 

We got four pages of new discussion on a thread that already existed.  Maybe it was a good revival!  :-)

[noumpere]

Before we spend too much time hashing over this, do we know that the umpires got it right?

 

I think sometimes we spend too much time trying to justify their rulings instead of just understanding how we would / should call it.

[Jimurray]

I didn't realize that it was already on here.  @Thunderheads is going to let me have it tomorrow morning!  

 

We got four pages of new discussion on a thread that already existed.  Maybe it was a good revival!  :-)

@basejester thinks so.

[johnnyg08]

Before we spend too much time hashing over this, do we know that the umpires got it right?

 

I think sometimes we spend too much time trying to justify their rulings instead of just understanding how we would / should call it.

 

 

All of the research I've done indicates that this is a correct call.  Balk.  

[johnnyg08]

Here's an additional video of the same play:

 

http://goo.gl/GrsyNb

 

Not sure why the embed isn't working: