Batter causes pitcher hesitation

[Mudisfun]

I kicked this exact scenario on Saturday. Funny part was the defensive coach yelling to his pitcher that it was his fault for not finishing the pitch.

Live and learn... Thankfully my kicking the rule did not impact the outcome.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[maineump]

Everyone here has a reset in FED. One way that might help the situation - when the batter asks for time, and you aren't going to give it, tell him NO. That tells him to stay in there for the pitch. You can explain to him after the pitch why you denied the request.

[noumpere]

 

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and ©, if the pitcher ­legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. 

 

 

 

The reference is to the rule about "delaying the game" and is the same part that they didn't fix when they changed the rule.  If the pitcher delivers, then there was no delay.  Call the pitch.  imo.

[Magic]

It is a Balk all day long....

Oh is it to late for April Fools day?

I wouldn't balk that. Like the posts above, Coaches would try and use that every time they could if we did.

Games Worked Too Damn Many

[ricka56]

 

 

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and ©, if the pitcher ­legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. 

 

The reference is to the rule about "delaying the game" and is the same part that they didn't fix when they changed the rule.  If the pitcher delivers, then there was no delay.  Call the pitch.  imo.

 

The words hesitate and delay are synonyms. If a batter asks for TIME as F1 is ready to pitch, I do consider that an attempt to delay the game. If F1 is freezing the batter, I'll grant TIME, but if he's just trying to disrupt F1's rhythm, then that's a delay of the game that I don't allow and penalize if it occurs. I would not reward the batter that cause F1 to hesitate his delivery that results in a pitch outside the KZ. By rule, the pitch is in the KZ.

[Richvee]

 

 

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and ©, if the pitcher ­legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. 

 

 

 

The reference is to the rule about "delaying the game" and is the same part that they didn't fix when they changed the rule.  If the pitcher delivers, then there was no delay.  Call the pitch.  imo.

 

(b) is the only scenario in this rule that deals with delay of game, and that is delay of game by the batter, 7-3-1. which tells us we can call 2 strikes if we feel the stepping out of the box was to delay the game. Scenarios (a) and (b) have nothing to do with delay of game, just a batter causing F1 to hesitate in his delivery and what to call if the pitch is delivered or if it is not. . 

[ALStripes17]

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and ©, if the pitcher ­legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live.

The reference is to the rule about "delaying the game" and is the same part that they didn't fix when they changed the rule. If the pitcher delivers, then there was no delay. Call the pitch. imo.

The words hesitate and delay are synonyms. If a batter asks for TIME as F1 is ready to pitch, I do consider that an attempt to delay the game. If F1 is freezing the batter, I'll grant TIME, but if he's just trying to disrupt F1's rhythm, then that's a delay of the game that I don't allow and penalize if it occurs. I would not reward the batter that cause F1 to hesitate his delivery that results in a pitch outside the KZ. By rule, the pitch is in the KZ.

Batter does a simple request for Time and we are going to penaloze him? Even if he stays in the box?

If that's the case, call strikes everytime an offensive coach requests 'Time' or balls when defensive coaches request 'Time'. They're delaying the game as well.

This act has to be intentional to get an automatic strike called on the pitch.

[ricka56]

 

The words hesitate and delay are synonyms. If a batter asks for TIME as F1 is ready to pitch, I do consider that an attempt to delay the game. If F1 is freezing the batter, I'll grant TIME, but if he's just trying to disrupt F1's rhythm, then that's a delay of the game that I don't allow and penalize if it occurs. I would not reward the batter that cause F1 to hesitate his delivery that results in a pitch outside the KZ. By rule, the pitch is in the KZ.

 

Batter does a simple request for Time and we are going to penaloze him? Even if he stays in the box?

...

This act has to be intentional to get an automatic strike called on the pitch.

 

If you are granting TIME every time B asks for it, then you are asking for trouble. If F1 comes set, there is no "freezing" of the batter, we are playing baseball, and there is (most times) no legitimate reason to ask for TIME, other than to fv<# with F1. I consider that intentional. If F1 doesn't deliver a pitch, that's nothing (as in the CB play).  If that TIME request causes F1 to hesitate/misfire, then benefit of the doubt goes to F1 and I would penalize the batter (as in the CB play).

 

If that's the case, call strikes everytime an offensive coach requests 'Time' or balls when defensive coaches request 'Time'. They're delaying the game as well.

 

Great idea. If you can get NFHS on-board, I'll get em. 

[ALStripes17]

The words hesitate and delay are synonyms. If a batter asks for TIME as F1 is ready to pitch, I do consider that an attempt to delay the game. If F1 is freezing the batter, I'll grant TIME, but if he's just trying to disrupt F1's rhythm, then that's a delay of the game that I don't allow and penalize if it occurs. I would not reward the batter that cause F1 to hesitate his delivery that results in a pitch outside the KZ. By rule, the pitch is in the KZ.

Batter does a simple request for Time and we are going to penaloze him? Even if he stays in the box?

...

This act has to be intentional to get an automatic strike called on the pitch.

If you are granting TIME every time B asks for it, then you are asking for trouble. If F1 comes set, there is no "freezing" of the batter, we are playing baseball, and there is (most times) no legitimate reason to ask for TIME, other than to fv<# with F1. I consider that intentional. If F1 doesn't deliver a pitch, that's nothing (as in the CB play). If that TIME request causes F1 to hesitate/misfire, then benefit of the doubt goes to F1 and I would penalize the batter (as in the CB play).

If that's the case, call strikes everytime an offensive coach requests 'Time' or balls when defensive coaches request 'Time'. They're delaying the game as well.

Great idea. If you can get NFHS on-board, I'll get em.

And that video was posted with your response why?

NCAA video where an umpire grants 'Time' (albeit interestingly) to the batter.

I fail to see how that relates.

[ricka56]

 

And that video was posted with your response why?

NCAA video where an umpire grants 'Time' (albeit interestingly) to the batter.

I fail to see how that relates.

 

That video is an example of a batter trying to mess with F1's rhythm. It is what often leads to F1 hesitating/mis-firing or aborting the delivery. F1 was pissed at the late TIME call, he tried to plunk the batter, missed, then took his frustration out on R3. I'm not condoning F1's action, he needs to be ejected. But If umpires were less inclined to grant TIME once F1 was set/stopped and penalizing them when they did, then fewer batters would try fv<#ing  with F1 by requesting TIME when he's ready to pitch..

[ALStripes17]

And that video was posted with your response why?

NCAA video where an umpire grants 'Time' (albeit interestingly) to the batter.

I fail to see how that relates.

That video is an example of a batter trying to mess with F1's rhythm. It is what often leads to F1 hesitating/mis-firing or aborting the delivery. F1 was pissed at the late TIME call, he tried to plunk the batter, missed, then took his frustration out on R3. I'm not condoning F1's action, he needs to be ejected. But If umpires were less inclined to grant TIME once F1 was set/stopped and penalizing them when they did, then fewer batters would try fv<#ing with F1 by requesting TIME when he's ready to pitch..

That is on the umpire for granting 'Time' in that situation; however, we don't necessarily know why the batter may be asking for 'Time'. In this video, leaning towards intent on B1 to be a douche nozzle. In many cases, the batter may be uncomfortable or have something in his eye.

I understand the concern and I even highlighted the idea of intent in my initial response to you. Hence my confusion on the relativity of THAT video which I feel does not address the issue at hand.

[ricka56]

 

That is on the umpire for granting 'Time' in that situation; however, we don't necessarily know why the batter may be asking for 'Time'. In this video, leaning towards intent on B1 to be a douche nozzle. In many cases, the batter may be uncomfortable or have something in his eye.

The video doesn't address the issue at hand, the video addresses one of the causes of the issue...batters thinking that they can ask for TIME willy-nilly.

 

All batters should be uncomfortable. F1 is trying to make them look like a fool...that's not a reason to bail on the baseball game being played. Time ?...NO!  And a batter all of a sudden getting something in his eye right as F1 is about to deliver a pitch is rare...very rare...so rare that I wouldn't buy it if it was claimed, and I'm not killing the play on the 99.99% of the times for the 0.01% of the time that it did happen....tough break if it did.

[sjkbacon]

I have a quick question. I had a situation where there was a R3 with two outs. Batter was in the batters box and the F1 was set. The batter was in the box but was not paying attention and adjusting his bat. The pitcher stopped mid motion and the call was a no balk per the rule of causing the pitcher to balk. Was this the correct call?

[ricka56]

I have a quick question. I had a situation where there was a R3 with two outs. Batter was in the batters box and the F1 was set. The batter was in the box but was not paying attention and adjusting his bat. The pitcher stopped mid motion and the call was a no balk per the rule of causing the pitcher to balk. Was this the correct call?

Probably, there is a rule against quick pitching (pitching without the batter being ready...not just in the batter's box). The umpire should have been calling TIME when the pitcher started his delivery without the batter being ready. IMO, a balk call would be inappropriate.

[Jimurray]

I have a quick question. I had a situation where there was a R3 with two outs. Batter was in the batters box and the F1 was set. The batter was in the box but was not paying attention and adjusting his bat. The pitcher stopped mid motion and the call was a no balk per the rule of causing the pitcher to balk. Was this the correct call?

As of the change made to the rules in 2014 it is the correct call:

"• Amended Rule 6.02(b) Comment to nullify a balk caused by “inadvertent” actions by the batter. (Batter is no longer limited to stepping out of the batter’s box in order for the balk to be nullified.)"