Complete stop, then bounces front foot: Why not a balk?

[Coach.HS]

The pitcher comes set, complete stop, then bounces (taps) one or more times with his front foot prior to his delivery.

It's not common. But we see it occasionally.  It's tough on basestealers.

Why isn't each tap of the foot considered the start of the delivery?

Below is an example from MLB.  The commentator says, "Three times his heel comes off the ground after his hands come set."  That's what I see too.

Would you balk this under Fed. rules? 

(Here's a gif and video of the same sequence).

 

https://imgflip.com/gif/k5q80

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v7047233/mlb-network-examines-whether-betancourt-balked

 

Thanks!

[Thunderheads]

FIRST AND FOREMOST .... especially has a coach determined to want and understand the rules:   NEVER - N_E_V_E_R listen to commentators when they're talking about rules

 

In a High School game, yes, probably.

 

This was discussed at a camp with James Hoye as a guest, and we were talking about Mariano Rivera's hesitation set with his hands and feet.  MLB considers it all a part of his "set motion".  Once he completely stops,.... THEN, anything after that would be called.   Basically, ... they overlook the elaborate "coming to a set" motions ...

 

But by the book, ... that's a balk.

 

Expert rule gurus will folllow!

[Rich Ives]

Mariano bounced hos foot while his hands were still moving.

[Thunderheads]

Mariano bounced hos foot while his hands were still moving.

that's what they were talking about ..........

[grayhawk]

If there is a continuous motion all the way through, I would not balk it.  If his whole body came to a stop, and then the toe tapping happened, I would balk it.  I wouldn't require the hands to still be moving while the toe tapping was going on.

 

Edit:  If his hands were not moving and he went right into his pitching motion as part of the toe tapping, I would balk him.

[Rich Ives]

 

Mariano bounced hos foot while his hands were still moving.

that's what they were talking about ..........

 

 

Nope.

 

OP:  The pitcher comes set, complete stop, then bounces (taps) one or more times with his front foot prior to his delivery.

[maven]

 

The pitcher comes set, complete stop, then bounces (taps) one or more times with his front foot prior to his delivery.

It's not common. But we see it occasionally.  It's tough on basestealers.

 

As described, that's a start/stop balk.

 

It is umpire judgment whether everything stopped prior to the foot bouncing.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

Mariano bounced hos foot while his hands were still moving.

that's what they were talking about ..........

 

 

Nope.

 

OP:  The pitcher comes set, complete stop, then bounces (taps) one or more times with his front foot prior to his delivery.

 

NO Rich ...that's not what I'm referring to.

 

THEY WERE was referring to:    The group at the camp who was discussing Rivera's 'come to set' motion.  Although not exactly like the OP ...it's a hesitated come to set motion.  

[ElkOil]

Looks like he's taking the train to Balk City in FED Land.  Ding!  Ding!  All aboard!

 

But he's not the first MLB pitcher to get away with this type of thing.  One of the Royal's pitchers stops, then separates his hands while lifting his non-pivot foot, brings his hands together again an then starts his delivery.  And nobody says anything.  I wonder how Bob Davidson would rule on that one?

[ZebraStripes]

Looks like he's taking the train to Balk City in FED Land.  Ding!  Ding!  All aboard!

 

But he's not the first MLB pitcher to get away with this type of thing.  One of the Royal's pitchers stops, then separates his hands while lifting his non-pivot foot, brings his hands together again an then starts his delivery.  And nobody says anything.  I wonder how Bob Davidson would rule on that one?

The same way he ruled on everything else..."Balk!!!"

[Dbellyflop]

I don't see a balk as his body never stops moving, till he comes set. if he does this stretch to set motion 10 times then uses the foot reset to start his move to the plate then balk.

[Replacematt]

I don't see a balk as his body never stops moving, till he comes set. if he does this stretch to set motion 10 times then uses the foot reset to start his move to the plate then balk.

How would that be a balk?

[Dbellyflop]

Because if he's doing the foot reset he has not come set. Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

[Replacematt]

Because if he's doing the foot reset he has not come set. Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

You're not making sense. You talk about a "stretch to set motion" but then say he doesn't come set.

[Dbellyflop]

if you watch him his whole body never stops moving when he's "resetting" his foot. then he comes to a complete stop. Then pitches. All i was saying is that if he pitches from one of the foot "resets", without stopping, then balk.

[maven]

if you watch him his whole body never stops moving when he's "resetting" his foot. then he comes to a complete stop. Then pitches. All i was saying is that if he pitches from one of the foot "resets", without stopping, then balk.

That's a no stop balk. Most folks here are concerned about a start/stop balk.

[roothog66]

 Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

[Replacematt]

Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended.

[maven]

Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended.

Agree. If anything, I'd put the point more strongly: ignore borderline violations unless intent to deceive is obvious.

[roothog66]

 

 

 

Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

 

No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended.

 

Agree. If anything, I'd put the point more strongly: ignore borderline violations unless intent to deceive is obvious.

 

I agree. I just too often here statements involving "deception" when judging whether a particular move is a balk. That sort of explanation irks me because I see it as irrelevant. You either violate a rule or you don't

[maven]

Some folks can't be bothered to learn the balk rules, so they just declare, "Deception!"

[roothog66]

 

 

Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

 

No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended.

 

That is an excellent interpretation of why Comment 8.05 is there.

[Replacematt]

Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended.

That is an excellent interpretation of why Comment 8.05 is there.

I just noticed a typo that's kinda important...it should say "Deception is not illegal."

[roothog66]

 

 

 

 

Also then it would be an obvious move to deceive the runner.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances.

 

No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended.

 

That is an excellent interpretation of why Comment 8.05 is there.

 

I just noticed a typo that's kinda important...it should say "Deception is not illegal."

 

I missed that, as well. Pretty much all puckoff moves contain a certain amount of intended deception. Take, for example, an inside move on an R2. It is clearly the intent of the pitcher that the runner believe that the pitcher is throwing to the plate. However, what ump in his right mind is going to call a balk, assuming it is done without violating any balk rules on the books, based on "intent to deceive."

[Pacedog]

What about jump throws to 1B?

[maven]

What about jump throws to 1B?

 

Um, they sometimes work?