Jose Bautista hits a double on John Danks' no-stop balk

[Jimurray]

@basejester since antinque IPads can't play with this website. A pitcher who doesn't stop and continues to windup gives the runner an advantage which is what Wendelstet says. But a pitcher can be in the windup position or the set postion with the same foot postion as evidenced by some MLB, NCAA, minor league pitchers. There are usually differences in how they address the rubber which tell what delivery they are going to use, as well as the common sense runner configurations. Johnnyg08 has been remiss as he promised video. If you see what these pitchers do you as wel. As the professional umpires would have no problem with it.
There is a loophole in the rule that is evidenced in the OP. A sideways pitcher might QP from his windup. There is no requirement to windup in the windup. For that matter a conventional windup pitcher can also rea back and throw. NCAA has addressed this. Maybe MLB has as evidenced in the OP. I don't know

Edited May 29, 2015 by Jimurray

[basejester]

What does the rulebook say distinguishes the two positions?

----

8.01 . . .

a . . .

When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his pivot
foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate and his other foot free, he will be considered
in the Windup Position.

Rule 8.01(a) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is permitted to have his “free” foot
on the rubber, in front of the rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.

b  . . .

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.

----

Pretty much nothing.  The set position specifies the non-pivot foot be in front of the rubber.  The wind-up position says the pitcher can put his non-pivot foot pretty much wherever, including in front of the rubber.  So if he puts his non-pivot foot in front of the rubber, it could be either.  "I know it when I see  it," may work for a definition of pornography but it's lacking for the definition of the wind-up, IMHO.

 

 

[Jimurray]

You will know it when you see it and so will the runners. The only problem I see is a sideways pitcher standing sideways and not coming set and throwing without a windup and claiming he was in the windup. I believe NCAA has directly addressed this with an interp. Either MLB or Meals or both appear now to agree with NCAA. A few pitchers in the past have gotten away with the QP.

[ricka56]

How is Danks' pitch in the OP any quicker than F1 delivering a pitch from the set/stop position or with no runners on base, F1 not stopping from the set position (legal). I believe that there is an interp that allows a pitch from the traditional windup position without the rocker step (and there is no such rulebook requirement). The term "quick pitch" is now being modified to include the tactics of these hybrid F1s. Can a traditional windup F1 eliminate the rocker step, but the hybrid windup F1 has to use one ? 

So hybrid F1 (Danks) has to either rocker step towards a potentially occupied 3B (previously a balk) or step directly to HP without the rocker step (now a balk).

[Jimurray]

 In years past sideways and conventional pitchers have occasionally thrown without a windup and we all thought, Danks included, that pitchers could vary their delivery. It pissed some batters off but MLB umpires did not call it a QP. This year NCAA definitely wants it called after modifying their rule to match the MLB rule. I agree that the batter is usually set in the box but is surprised by the immediate throw. Whether that is a legal deception in MLB I don't know. Meals thought it was illegal.

[ricka56]

@‌Jimurray  I looked unsuccessfully in the NCAA rule book for the changes that you refer to. If you have the time, would you please send me this NCAA rule citation. TIA.

[Jimurray]

@ricka56:

COMMENT: The pitcher is standing in the set or “stretch” with ball in the meat hand, which is on his hip. There are no runners on base. This is not the pitcher’s normal pitching motion from this position but one that is used, usually in relief with a count of 0-2 or 1-2. It is used in an attempt to surprise the batter. From this position, without any type of preliminary body movement, the pitcher pushes off the rubber and throws to the batter.
INTERPRETATION: It is a form of a quick pitch and should be ruled an illegal pitch which carries the above penalty.

Edited May 29, 2015 by Jimurray

[ricka56]

1. This must be someplace other than the on-line NCAA Baseball rule book that I can access (still can't find it).

2. There are several things in this comment that don't apply to the OP:
    The pitcher is standing in the set or “stretch” ;
     ball in the meat hand, which is on his hip ;
    There are no runners on base.

Danks is in his hybrid wind-up position. I don't see how (if using NCAA rules) this rule comment would apply.

[TheRockawayKid]

I'm sorry, but I can't see where the quick pitch is. He's coming to a set, and he has a slide step. It doesn't look too different than this.  But then again, in the 0:15 mark of this video, he lifts his leg while delivering. By going to the slide step instead of the leg lift, is that what they're calling the balk on? 

I'm with @ricka56 in the confused department. 

[Jimurray]

@ricka56. The comment is from the March interps in Arbiter. What you would use is the "the attempt to surprise" and "no preliminary body motion" in the OP or any other move like this regardless if it fit the exact NCAA example. A Joe Torre memo would be welcome. In the mean time remain confused. I will allow OBR and NCAA pitchers to pitch with Danks foot position. I will use umpire judgement if I deem a QP. Meals judged yes, others have not.

[ricka56]

A Joe Torre memo would be welcome. Agreed
In the mean time remain confused. Its my natural state, so no big deal
I will allow OBR and NCAA pitchers to pitch with Danks foot position. Agreed
I will use umpire judgement if I deem a QP. Without some set criteria, I'm not opening myself to OOO criticism for an arbitrary QP call.
Meals judged yes, others have not. Refer to line #1