Balk! wait, nevermind just kidding.

[jpperez14]

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v377253783/?query=ejection

Balk, no balk? What do you think? what argument would you have as a coach?

[Jimurray]

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v377253783/?query=ejection

Balk, no balk? What do you think? what argument would you have as a coach?

Sideways pitcher. No Balk. It was his windup. 

[jpperez14]

Sideways pitcher. No Balk. It was his windup. 

I thought at first glace that he was in the stretch and didn't see a stop. then I realized how his body was positioned and was curious if that was his windup. but they also mentioned in the video that the whole game he was like that but, going to the stretch.

[Jimurray]

I thought at first glace that he was in the stretch and didn't see a stop. then I realized how his body was positioned and was curious if that was his windup. but they also mentioned in the video that the whole game he was like that but, going to the stretch.

I don't know about this pitcher but most sideways pitchers do some different when they address the rubber or look in for the sign and you can differentiate what they are going to do. But, if you can't tell, as Wendelstedt says, if they windup it gives the runner an advantage. Except for the Strop kind of quick pitch that I think MLB may have said to penalize it.

[kylejt]

Balk, or not, I don't care. But how on Earth do you reverse the call, after U2 makes it? Plus, they didn't even count the pitch. 

 

Make a reversal like that, and you'd better be working three man, with U2 going to the showers, He's obviously not needed, or doesn't know what he's doing out there. 

 

F1's been doing the same thing all game, then gets called for out of the blue. Okay, maybe U2 saw something a little different that time, But reverse his own call? Come on now. I'm slapping any LL umpire for doing that. 

 

[Lindsay]

Looks like Tumpane balked it on the premise it was a no-stop out of Set. Crew got together and Tumpane reversed it upon realizing it was F1's Windup.

Murphy gets upset because in NCAA (his last 'big league' level managed), it used to be a balk (free foot could not be in front of pivot foot - had to be even with or behind). In pro, it's completely legal.

This used to be in NCAA: "The pitcher’s entire free foot shall not be in front of the pivot foot." They took it out and just replaced it with "with the other foot free" prior to the 2015 season. Still, make no mistake. This is a NFHS balk.

Edited August 17, 2015 by Gil: Owner - UEFL

[ricka56]

What if F1 did stop in the OP ?  Would we balk him for failing to deliver his wind-up pitch without interruption or alteration ? Couldn't he claim he was in the set position and required to stop? F1 can have 999 different ways of legally winding-up and another 999 different ways to legally set. As long as its legal he can change his process as often as he likes.

1)  F1 could stop before delivering and claim he is in the set.
2)  F1 could not stop and claim he is in the wind-up.

How are we to decide which position he is in ?  Trying to identify the windup/set position by some idiosyncrasy that is legal in either position is a terrible way to officiate. The result is that F1 gets to cut down on R3's lead unfairly...and I think illegally.

Take it another step. What if with R1, F1 doesn't stop. That's a balk, right ? But why can't F1 claim that he was in his hybrid wind-up (not the set). What changes our dilemma just because the runner is on the other corner? By allowing the hybrid with R3, we are in an untenable situation. Why should we have to arbitrate whether he's in his wind-up or set position. 

 

[noumpere]

I think this is three or four of these that we have seen this season.  Maybe MLB will go to some "more strict" interpretation / indication by the pitcher of windup vs. stretch.  I doubt they will go all the way to what NCAA had, because that's not "how pitchers are taught" but at least the rule was (reasonably) clear and enforceable.

[Jimurray]

What if F1 did stop in the OP ?  Would we balk him for failing to deliver his wind-up pitch without interruption or alteration ? Couldn't he claim he was in the set position and required to stop? F1 can have 999 different ways of legally winding-up and another 999 different ways to legally set. As long as its legal he can change his process as often as he likes.

1)  F1 could stop before delivering and claim he is in the set.
2)  F1 could not stop and claim he is in the wind-up.

How are we to decide which position he is in ?  Trying to identify the windup/set position by some idiosyncrasy that is legal in either position is a terrible way to officiate. The result is that F1 gets to cut down on R3's lead unfairly...and I think illegally.

Take it another step. What if with R1, F1 doesn't stop. That's a balk, right ? But why can't F1 claim that he was in his hybrid wind-up (not the set). What changes our dilemma just because the runner is on the other corner? By allowing the hybrid with R3, we are in an untenable situation. Why should we have to arbitrate whether he's in his wind-up or set position. 

 

Actually, an OBR pitcher can stop with hands together in the windup as long as there is no foot movement associated with the pitch. There is room for abuse in the current OBR wording as shown by Strop and a few others although the last time it happened it was QP'd. When Rusin winds up he puts his hands together below the waist. There is a subtle difference in his foot position. When he comes set he brings his hands to his chest. 

[basejester]

what argument would you have as a coach?

If the second base umpire, whose explicit job it is to understand the rules in and out, can't tell if the pitcher is using the windup or the set, how is it reasonable to expect my runners to?  If the count is 3-2 with two outs, he stands in exactly this position, moves his hands, and then picks, is that a balk?  Why?  How does the runner know he's starting windup motion instead of starting to come set?  We can't wait until after the pitch to determine if the pitcher is in the set position or the wind-up.  

Sideways windup is bullSH*# and you don't know how to officiate it.  Throw me out now.

 

 

[TheRockawayKid]

I think this is three or four of these that we have seen this season.  Maybe MLB will go to some "more strict" interpretation / indication by the pitcher of windup vs. stretch.  I doubt they will go all the way to what NCAA had, because that's not "how pitchers are taught" but at least the rule was (reasonably) clear and enforceable.

Not my job to teach them. Teach them differently. 

[Jimurray]

If the second base umpire, whose explicit job it is to understand the rules in and out, can't tell if the pitcher is using the windup or the set, how is it reasonable to expect my runners to?  If the count is 3-2 with two outs, he stands in exactly this position, moves his hands, and then picks, is that a balk?  Why?  How does the runner know he's starting windup motion instead of starting to come set?  We can't wait until after the pitch to determine if the pitcher is in the set position or the wind-up.  

Sideways windup is bullSH*# and you don't know how to officiate it.  Throw me out now.

 

 

Moving hands in the windup to a stop without other motion associated with the pitch is allowed. 

[basejester]

Moving hands in the windup to a stop without other motion associated with the pitch is allowed. 

When do you judge the pitcher is committed to home in this video?

 

[noumpere]

Not my job to teach them. Teach them differently. 

Agreed -- but since coaches make the rules (in a general sense), how the pitchers are taught is going to be considered in the rule.

[Jimurray]

When do you judge the pitcher is committed to home in this video?

 

First movement. 

[basejester]

First movement. 

Here's the problem I'm imagining. 

1. The pitcher aligns his feet as in the video.
2. Hands start moving as in the video.
3. The runners break.
4. The pitcher comes to a stop as if set.
5.  The pitcher steps and throws to a base or legally disengages.

So, is this a balk because he was "in the windup" and "first movement" committed him to pitch?  It sure looks like a legal set position. How do we know he's "in the windup"?

[RichMSN]

The umpire made a mistake and the crew corrected it.

Nothing to see here, let's move on.

Kyle is being overdramatic.  Umpires at all levels make mistakes like this every day.

All that said, this sideways windup bullcrap should go the way of the dodo.  The Royals pitcher last night took his signs facing the plate, pivoted sideways, then started his windup. He looked like a 12-year-old LL pitcher doing that.  How did all this become legal in the first place and why does anyone think that's a good idea?

[Dbellyflop]

5.07 a(1) 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. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

 

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. 

Copied fro OBR. Underlines added.

 

i don't see how this is not illegal. He does not start with his hands together. He brings his hands together as he steps forward. Also he doesn't take one step back and one step forward, he takes one step forward and one step forward. 

 

[DVA7130]

I don't want this to end up like FED's rule, but at some point "in front of the rubber" for the wind-up should have the comment added of 'immediately' in front of the rubber.

Also, I find that he was "facing the batter" a bit of a stretch. I don't care if that is "his" windup. It sure frekin' looks like a stretch, even U2 figured so.

[Jimurray]

Here's the problem I'm imagining. 

1. The pitcher aligns his feet as in the video.
2. Hands start moving as in the video.
3. The runners break.
4. The pitcher comes to a stop as if set.
5.  The pitcher steps and throws to a base or legally disengages.

So, is this a balk because he was "in the windup" and "first movement" committed him to pitch?  It sure looks like a legal set position. How do we know he's "in the windup"?

2. Hands and foot start moving.

4. That's a balk. 

If you have seen this pitcher in both the set and windup there is a difference. Again, there is potential for gaming the current rule.

[Jimurray]

5.07 a(1) 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. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

 

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. 

Copied fro OBR. Underlines added.

 

i don't see how this is not illegal. He does not start with his hands together. He brings his hands together as he steps forward. Also he doesn't take one step back and one step forward, he takes one step forward and one step forward. 

 

PBUC/MLBUM say under the current rules a step sideways is also allowed. The free foot can be to the side, infront of, on or behind the rubber and step to the side "all of which are commonly accepted current practices". 

[basejester]

2. Hands and foot start moving.

4. That's a balk. 

If you have seen this pitcher in both the set and windup there is a difference. Again, there is potential for gaming the current rule.

I thought we had established very firmly that "It's not a balk; he does it every time" was a myth.  Each pitcher shouldn't have a personal rule set. 

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you; I just think it's an absurd situation.  When the pitcher intentionally creates a deception of which motion he's using, I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  They need to adjust the interpretations that allow the lines to be blurred.  Backward is not sideways.

 

[ricka56]

Actually, an OBR pitcher can stop with hands together in the windup as long as there is no foot movement associated with the pitch.

That just adds to the confusion about what position side-ways F1 is in. F1 doesn't have to move his feet when in the set position either. So if F1 doesn't move his feet and brings his hands together, he can be stop or not stop. They have eliminated the stop requirement in the set and eliminated the continuous motion requirement in the wind-up because F1 is in both the windup and set position at the same time.

When Rusin winds up he puts his hands together below the waist (this hand position is legal in both wind-up and set position). There is a subtle difference in his foot position (either foot position is legal in both wind-up and set position).  When he comes set he brings his hands to his chest (this hand position is legal in both wind-up and set position). 

Trying to identify the windup/set position by some idiosyncrasy that is legal in either position is a terrible way to officiate. Enforcement of the pitching rules becomes completely arbitrary.

 

[Jimurray]

I thought we had established very firmly that "It's not a balk; he does it every time" was a myth.  Each pitcher shouldn't have a personal rule set. 

I'm not exactly disagreeing with you; I just think it's an absurd situation.  When the pitcher intentionally creates a deception of which motion he's using, I don't think he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  They need to adjust the interpretations that allow the lines to be blurred.  Backward is not sideways.

 

Most of the sideways pitchers are not intentionally being deceptive about which delivery you are going to see. Tupane had a brainfart. This is Rusin's set position:

http://m.mlb.com/video/v312697783/colstl-rusin-picks-off-wong-in-the-3rd-inning/?mlbtax=pitching

I can't find video of how he gets to that position and you might not know from his starting point whether he is going to come set with hands in front of chest or windup by putting hands together below his waist. But in normal set position runner configurations, I think a runner would gain an advantage if he wound up. But there is room for abuse and one of the commentors on Gil's article says that MiLB has a new interp that wants sideways pitchers to have a none parallel pivot foot alignment when winding up. 

Edited August 17, 2015 by Jimurray

[Jimurray]

That just adds to the confusion about what position side-ways F1 is in. F1 doesn't have to move his feet when in the set position either. So if F1 doesn't move his feet and brings his hands together, he can be stop or not stop. We have eliminated the stop requirement in the set and eliminated the continuous motion requirement in the wind-up because he is in both the windup and set position at the same time.

Trying to identify the windup/set position by some idiosyncrasy that is legal in either position is a terrible way to officiate. Enforcement of the pitching rules becomes completely arbitrary.

 

There is no need to identify the windup or set position prepitch because the pitcher can pick from either position. MLB runners are not disadvantaged by the sideways pitchers except for guys like Strop who would windup without a windup from the set. The last guy to try that was QP'd though so MLB might be telling umps not to allow it. If more guys tried to sharpshoot the rule your argument is valid. In fact MiLB might be doing something about it.