Another Balk Question

[clasonater]

High school JV, I am PU: runner on second.  As pitcher [right-handed] lifts his leg, the runner breaks for third.  At the top of his leg kick, he makes an attempt to step over towards third.  Instead of actually stepping over to throw, he does one of those off balance wobbles not knowing whether he should spin to second or or throw to third.  He ends up attempting a throw to third but again changes his mind and manages to spin towards second almost falling over.  I could tell that he never intended to come home with a pitch, but I called a balk anyway (yes, I called it too quick).  The whole thing was ugly and the wobble got me.  Here's my question:  If I judge he never intended to come home with a pitch, and he gains ground at the completion of the play, should that hesitation at the top of his leg kick constitute a balk, or be disregarded?  

P.S. this was my partners first game ever, so he didn't have a clue what was going on.    

[maven]

We need to remember several points in a play like this.

First, ugly is not illegal. If we can't tell coach why it was a balk, it probably wasn't.

Second, "hesitation" is not a violation. If everything came to a stop — a stop sufficient to have counted as coming set — then we could have a start/stop balk. That said, when a kid is practically falling over, it doesn't sound like everything stopped.

Third, we need eyes on the non-pivot foot. If he steps toward one base and throws or feints to another, then we could have a step balk. This sounds more likely than a start/stop balk.

Without video, of course, there's no way to assess a judgment call. Coaches often do think that ugly = illegal, so if it was ugly enough I doubt you caught much flak for calling the balk.

[clasonater]

Thanks for the reply.  Ya nobody really said anything. 

The hesitation occurred at the top of his leg kick, where his knee was at the apex.  That's where he started wobbling from indecision.  From the wobble he started to step toward third and then spun towards second all ugly and sideways

[clasonater]

But, I have the same idea that ugly does not always equal balk, that's why I second guessed this one

 

[Richvee]

He can't stop with the non pivot leg in the air and then decide where he wants to throw. If he got to the top of his kick, (balance point) and started a step to 2nd or 3rd and then changed the leg motion to the other base, we've got a balk for change of direction.

[Replacematt]

Did he step directly to a base? Then no balk.

In this case, I doubt his step was direct.

[maven]

7 hours ago, Richvee said:

He can't stop with the non pivot leg in the air and then decide where he wants to throw. If he got to the top of his kick, (balance point) and started a step to 2nd or 3rd and then changed the leg motion to the other base, we've got a balk for change of direction.

Rich, I think I understand where you're going with the first statement, but as it stands it is false. And there is no such thing as a "balk for change of direction." In my experience, trying to officiate balks using such language creates more problems than it solves.

Stopping only the leg is nothing; stopping his entire body, if sufficiently long, constitutes a start/stop balk.

Failing to step directly to a base (including moving or stepping toward a different base) and throwing/feinting constitutes a step balk.

As I understand the OP, my explanation to coach might be something like: "Coach, I had him stepping to 3B before throwing to 2B." Ordinarily, I might just say, "step balk," but when the motion is this ugly a few more words might be warranted. But whatever I say, I want the infraction to instantly fit into a proper balk category.

[Senor Azul]

From the Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual:  The pitcher may commit several acts that are balks. They are…the pitcher suspends his foot in the air (he stopped his delivery) in an attempt to hold a runner.

Play 132:  R1, no outs, no count. The left-handed pitcher, after coming stopped in the set position, raises his non-pivot foot off of the ground and suspends it in the air, freezing R1. He then steps and throws to first base in an attempt to pick-off R1. RULING:  This is a balk.

[clasonater]

Thanks for the help fellas.  One more question about this situation.  The pitcher did end up throwing to second base after the runner was already half way to third.  Could I have also got him for throwing to an unoccupied base, or is second base still technically occupied because the runner had not legally attained third?  I see it all the time with lefties throwing "behind" the runner at first.   

[maven]

8 minutes ago, clasonater said:

Thanks for the help fellas.  One more question about this situation.  The pitcher did end up throwing to second base after the runner was already half way to third.  Could I have also got him for throwing to an unoccupied base, or is second base still technically occupied because the runner had not legally attained third?  I see it all the time with lefties throwing "behind" the runner at first.   

That's an easy one. 1B is occupied if we have R1, 2B is occupied if we have R2, 3B is occupied if we have R3 (using standard, not FED, notation). "Occupied" ≠ "standing on the base."

Moreover, with R2 stealing, F1 can't go wrong if he steps and throws to either 2B or 3B. He's good throwing to 2B because 2B is occupied. He's good throwing to 3B because the rule allows throwing to an unoccupied base "for the purpose of making a play," and R2 is stealing.

Finally, though you mention "lefties," remember that no pitching rule in any code makes any distinction between LHP and RHP. Either one, once engaged on the rubber, must pitch to the batter, disengage, or step and throw/feint to a base.

[clasonater]

That's how I understood it, I just wanted to clarify.  Especially for the newbie that was working with me. 

[Richvee]

15 hours ago, maven said:

Rich, I think I understand where you're going with the first statement, but as it stands it is false. And there is no such thing as a "balk for change of direction." In my experience, trying to officiate balks using such language creates more problems than it solves.

Stopping only the leg is nothing; stopping his entire body, if sufficiently long, constitutes a start/stop balk.

Failing to step directly to a base (including moving or stepping toward a different base) and throwing/feinting constitutes a step balk.

As I understand the OP, my explanation to coach might be something like: "Coach, I had him stepping to 3B before throwing to 2B." Ordinarily, I might just say, "step balk," but when the motion is this ugly a few more words might be warranted. But whatever I say, I want the infraction to instantly fit into a proper balk category.

Thanks. Horrible terminology on my part. .....And poorly worded. I need to get better at explaining balks to coaches. Great advice here for me.

[noumpere]

14 hours ago, Richvee said:

I need to get better at explaining balks to coaches. Great advice here for me.

Use the rule book.  Five words or fewer.  Don't demonstrate.