Calling a step balk from the B position?

[Cato the Younger]

You have no right to declare the area in front of a dugout dead ball area so a coach can sit out there on a bucket.. I'm not about to search for the incident, but it happened here in NJ, prompting the POE and strict  enforcement  of the rule... ignore it at your own risk. You sound like the guy who lets the kids play when you hear thunder and dismiss it by saying, "That's far away, no worries"

No, because lightning is a real threat to everyone's safety. 

Maybe in NJ, you all have top rate facilities for high school baseball. We always do not. Some of our dugouts are like pinball machines when foul balls fly in there. Are you really keeping coaches safe or just blindly following a rule interpretation thinking that you are????? 

If you want to keep the coaches safe requiring them to wear helmets while in the dugout would protect more coaches, or creating minimum safety standards for dugouts then the current rule requirements.

Fed rule 1-2-4 allows the dugout to be extended. That extension creates dead ball territory. They should be extended toward the outfield by rule for the record.  I do tell the coaches to go on the outfield side of the dugout when I extend the dugouts as a ground rule. Rule 4-1-2 allows umpires to create special ground rules. This is dead ball territory and considered part of the dugout by rule. I have rule support for what I am doing. Creative rule support? You bet..... but it's there. If both coaches don't agree, they then are told to stay in the dugout with no special ground rule. That has happened, and I did not allow only one coach the dugout extension. 

As I have indicated this is something that works for me your mileage may vary. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by Cato the Younger

[Richvee]

All our fields are not top rate, I guarantee you that, and I've seen plenty balls pinball around a dugout. That's out of my control. But what is within my control is enforcing a safety rule that says the coach needs to be in the dugout.   Extending the dugout towards the outfield and letting the coach sit on his bucket down there is a little different. You can legally extend the dugout that way and then a coach has the right to sit in that space on his bucket. What I was picturing was the bucket 20 feet from home plate  in front of the dugout.

For the record, when my association tells me to keep coaches in the dugout , and tell me if a coach is seen on a bucket outside the dugout during one of my games I will lose future assignments, I'm enforcing the rule.

[ricka56]

I work in one "league" where if we allowed coaches on buckets, we'd lose assignments.
I also work in a different "league' where if we didn't allowed coaches on buckets, we'd lose assignments.

 

[grayhawk]

Hijack complete.

[Cato the Younger]

All our fields are not top rate, I guarantee you that, and I've seen plenty balls pinball around a dugout. That's out of my control. But what is within my control is enforcing a safety rule that says the coach needs to be in the dugout.   Extending the dugout towards the outfield and letting the coach sit on his bucket down there is a little different. You can legally extend the dugout that way and then a coach has the right to sit in that space on his bucket. What I was picturing was the bucket 20 feet from home plate  in front of the dugout.

For the record, when my association tells me to keep coaches in the dugout , and tell me if a coach is seen on a bucket outside the dugout during one of my games I will lose future assignments, I'm enforcing the rule.

I just want indicate that I won't knock anybody that requires all the participants to stay in the dugout. It's the right thing to do.  I will not call some umpires go about the process looking like their landing planes on the ball diamond waving their arms frantically trying to get everybody back in to the dugout.

Have I allowed coaches to sit on buckets outside the dugout and the dead ball area? I try to appeal to the coaches that I don't have a problem with them being outside in a designated dead ball area but certainly not in the line of fire.

What ruffles my feathers is when you have posters that are like appalled that other areas are not vigilantly enforcing certain rules when I suspect that in their areas consistency and enforcement  is not as robust as their post would lead everyone to believe.

[Cato the Younger]

Hijack complete.

Temporarily hijacked.

Back to the OP.  I think this is a highly technical balk at the high school level. Yes professional umpires are taught that the non-pivot foot must gain ground aka the step. But I think this is an easy pass from a tuneup game to a state championship game. 

[Richvee]

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Hijack complete.

Apologies. As for the no step balk. I think it's It's a tough sell for BU..Once F1 starts a move towards 1st shouldn't BU be taking a step and focusing on a play at 1st?  Easier for PU to be picking up this type of balk. 

[grayhawk]

11 hours ago, Richvee said:

Apologies. As for the no step balk. I think it's It's a tough sell for BU..Once F1 starts a move towards 1st shouldn't BU be taking a step and focusing on a play at 1st?  Easier for PU to be picking up this type of balk. 

I agree, which is why I started the thread.  I will say that I saw it clear as day.  I saw it the first time he did it, but wanted another look at it.  He picked 3 or 4 more times that inning and there was no question in my mind that he wasn't gaining distance to first.  I had no problem seeing it and taking a step to make the call at first.  However, I would definitely prefer that PU make this call.

I will say that I do not consider this to be a technical balk.  He is gaining a clear advantage, and the balk rule exists to prevent this kind of advantage over the runners.

[ricka56]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

I will say that I do not consider this to be a technical balk.  He is gaining a clear advantage, and the balk rule exists to prevent this kind of advantage over the runners.

I disagree. The balk rules are there to prevent F1 from deceptively cheating. Once F1's pivot foot breaks the rubber, no pitch can be thrown and R1 is at risk. Technically he is cheating if he doesn't gain any ground, but it is not a deceptive move...just a fast one. 

[grayhawk]

51 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

I disagree. The balk rules are there to prevent F1 from deceptively cheating. Once F1's pivot foot breaks the rubber, no pitch can be thrown and R1 is at risk. Technically he is cheating if he doesn't gain any ground, but it is not a deceptive move...just a fast one. 

You contradicted yourself.  One one hand, you say the balk rule is about "deceptively" cheating, and then acknowledge that this is a balk because he is cheating without it being deceptive.

We all know there are plenty of ways to deceive the runner without balking.  The balk rule attempts to create an environment where neither the pitcher, nor the runner have an unfair advantage.  Certain kinds of deception are just a subset of this unfair advantage.

[ricka56]

18 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

You contradicted yourself.  One one hand, you say the balk rule is about "deceptively" cheating, and then acknowledge that this is a technical balk because he is cheating (per rule) without it being deceptive.

We all know there are plenty of ways to deceive the runner without balking.  The balk rule attempts to create an environment where neither the pitcher, nor the runner have an unfair advantage.  Certain kinds of deception are just a subset of this unfair advantage.

I added a few words to your first sentence to hopefully clear up your misunderstanding. I was refuting your assertion that this isn't just a technical balk. I believe they developed the balk rules to prevent deceptive cheating and some non-deceptive moves that were made illegal, were the unintentional consequences of doing so. Those I consider technical balks. 

[Richvee]

8 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I agree, which is why I started the thread.  I will say that I saw it clear as day.  I saw it the first time he did it, but wanted another look at it.  He picked 3 or 4 more times that inning and there was no question in my mind that he wasn't gaining distance to first.  I had no problem seeing it and taking a step to make the call at first.  However, I would definitely prefer that PU make this call.

I will say that I do not consider this to be a technical balk.  He is gaining a clear advantage, and the balk rule exists to prevent this kind of advantage over the runners.

I agree it's not a ticky-tac, or technical balk. I'd like to think given this situation, the second time I saw it and, as you say, had no question he wasn't stepping, I would hope I would call it. Better he learn it now than in a meaningful game later in the season .

[Out&UglyToo]

I grew up stealing bases. I'd often call a balk before the ump. There are no such things as "technical balks", they are all just "balks" - intentional deception by the pitcher (OK and an occasional oopsie-daisy) to prevent me from stealing 2nd 3rd, or home. Please call them and award bases, unless the score is something like 27 to 0 in a 4-hour game with no mercy kill rule. We can all manage to "NOT SEE" a balk by the pitcher that is down 26 runs, RIGHT?

The rules of baseball began developing in 1845, and are presently quite refined. As an umpire, it is not my role to make, interpret, nor edit the rules, merely to enforce them judiciously. Each league has a book of rule interpretations. Learn these. Ask senior umpires or the appropriate person in the league hierarchy.

Edited January 26, 2016 by Out&UglyToo
omission

[Welpe]

On 1/26/2016 at 3:00 PM, Out&UglyToo said:

There are no such things as "technical balks",

Sure there are. The gorilla arm balk in Fed is a perfect example of this. I see your point though and, in general, I agree.

[grozzly]

On 22/1/2016 at 10:02 PM, grayhawk said:

 

If it's a game that matters, and the PU doesn't call it, would you?

If i see the step balk, even if i am in B, i call it. 

[JaxRolo]

Judgement. If you see it call it. But better be 100% sure.

[grayhawk]

I went to watch a buddy umpire last night and this same pitcher started the game.  I didn't actually recognize him until he made a pickoff in the first inning.  I was watching from behind the backstop and after seeing him gain no distance to first, it dawned on me that it was the same kid.  There's no question in my mind that his move is a balk.  I asked my buddy if he saw it and he admitted that he wasn't paying close attention since it was just a winter game.

He didn't have to make a pickoff for the rest of the inning of the next and then another pitcher came in, so that was the only look my buddy got.

[Cato the Younger]

On January 26, 2016 at 5:00 PM, Out&UglyToo said:

I grew up stealing bases. I'd often call a balk before the ump. There are no such things as "technical balks", they are all just "balks" - intentional deception by the pitcher (OK and an occasional oopsie-daisy) to prevent me from stealing 2nd 3rd, or home. Please call them and award bases, unless the score is something like 27 to 0 in a 4-hour game with no mercy kill rule. We can all manage to "NOT SEE" a balk by the pitcher that is down 26 runs, RIGHT?

The rules of baseball began developing in 1845, and are presently quite refined. As an umpire, it is not my role to make, interpret, nor edit the rules, merely to enforce them judiciously. Each league has a book of rule interpretations. Learn these. Ask senior umpires or the appropriate person in the league hierarchy.

Much to comment on this post. What makes you different from a large percentage of ballplayers who like to make balk calls before the umpire? I've seen a lot of players to this, and many of them are actually balks.

There are a lot of technical balks a literal enforcement of the rule could be called but shouldn't. A general rule of thumb black or white umpiring is not good umpiring. You indicate that umpires are not supposed to interpret rules yes they are good, and great umpires do that all the time.

Your definition of a balk includes intentional deception. There's a lot of intentional deception that is perfectly legal. I think a better definition is illegally deceiving runners. Changing the amount of time you stop in the set position. Faking to third in Wheeling to first, head turns to runners at second base are all examples of intentional legal deception.

[Cato the Younger]

18 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I went to watch a buddy umpire last night and this same pitcher started the game.  I didn't actually recognize him until he made a pickoff in the first inning.  I was watching from behind the backstop and after seeing him gain no distance to first, it dawned on me that it was the same kid.  There's no question in my mind that his move is a balk.  I asked my buddy if he saw it and he admitted that he wasn't paying close attention since it was just a winter game.

He didn't have to make a pickoff for the rest of the inning of the next and then another pitcher came in, so that was the only look my buddy got.

I definitely agree that you have rule support to call the balk because he's not gaining ground as I've previously posted. But there's very little difference between this and a jump turn. If I'm picturing it as I believe you're describing it ...... after he makes the move is non-pivot foot is effectively behind his pivot foot so he would be effectively in the same place if he did a jump turn. I will not say an umpire that's calling this balk is wrong. Again you have rule support, but I still think this is one to keep the flag in your pocket and wait for the real balks like not stopping in the set position, faking to first, or picking a runner off from the wind-up position etc. 

Does anybody remember throwing a flag on a balk? I do. 

[grayhawk]

9 hours ago, Cato the Younger said:

I definitely agree that you have rule support to call the balk because he's not gaining ground as I've previously posted. But there's very little difference between this and a jump turn. If I'm picturing it as I believe you're describing it ...... after he makes the move is non-pivot foot is effectively behind his pivot foot so he would be effectively in the same place if he did a jump turn. I will not say an umpire that's calling this block is wrong. Again you have rule support, but I still think this is one to keep the flag in your pocket and wait for the real balks like not stopping in the set position, faking to first, or picking a runner off from the wind-up position etc. 

Does anybody remember throwing a flag on a balk? I do. 

Not gaining any distance gives the pitcher a clear advantage because he's able to pick much quicker to first.  It's a real balk because it's a real advantage that the pitcher is illegally gaining over the runner.

[Cato the Younger]

33 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Not gaining any distance gives the pitcher a clear advantage because he's able to pick much quicker to first.  It's a real balk because it's a real advantage that the pitcher is illegally gaining over the runner.

If you want to be the balk evangelist enforcing this one knock yourself out. 

It's pretty obvious by your posting that you want to balk this and think everybody else should be too.

But without a significant point of emphasis, change in the culture of the game, or a number of people that I work with starting to call it differently I'm certainly going to pass on this one. I've seen this move a significant amount of times over the last several years and have passed on balking it every single time. Noting to myself that he's not gaining ground. No one including some highly intelligent pitching coaches ( Some with professional even major-league experience) that like to banter on about a lot of little technical things have never mentioned that this should be a balk on their opponents. 

There are many balks I pass on every season. 

Again it's a philosophy but a valid one that if you have to conduct a pitching clinic on the field for anyone to understand what you're calling a balk this might be one to pass on.

[BT_Blue]

Funny... Every association I have been in, from California all the way to Washington, have said they wanted this distance and direction balk called. But to each their own.

Oh... And you mentioned the 3-1 move. That would only be illegal in OBR. So it, for the most part, won't be called. 

[Replacematt]

A spin on the free foot? This is a balk in every game, even t-ball.

[maven]

6 hours ago, Matt said:

A spin on the free foot? This is a balk in every game, even t-ball.

[Cato the Younger]

16 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

Funny... Every association I have been in, from California all the way to Washington, have said they wanted this distance and direction balk called. But to each their own.

Oh... And you mentioned the 3-1 move. That would only be illegal in OBR. So it, for the most part, won't be called. 

If you guys want to be "balk evangelists" enforcing this one knock yourselves out. You have rule support, but I am not going to be balking this anytime soon if smoothly executed unless a whole lot more of your colleagues actually start calling it.

There's  a huge difference between what's preached at association meetings and what's actually called in games by many umpires.