Kershaw Balk

[Thunderheads]

I love how Joe calls this ........  

Kershaw has been doing this for a while and ....in my eyes, it's a balk and he does it everytime.  He's pissed because no one  else call it on him but Joe!  He moves forward torward home ....

Kershaw is also a cry-baby ...look at him "not even close!"  I'm surprised Joe kept him in the game, lol

http://m.mlb.com/video/v776806583/?query=balk

[stkjock]

looked like Joe was getting close to a EJ when they focused the camera on his face

 

Jeff - the "move forward" you're referring to his free foot action and subsequent body momentum? 

[Thunderheads]

looked like Joe was getting close to a EJ when they focused the camera on his face

 

Jeff - the "move forward" you're referring to his free foot action and subsequent body momentum? 

Yes

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[stkjock]

 

Thx

[zoops]

Looks like a fairly standard LH move to first from the video, but it also didn't give as good of a view as Joe had.  

[grayhawk]

The Texas Tech/New Mexico college regional game last weekend ended on a pickoff on this exact same move - not called a balk.

[MikeSafari]

It's close, and it's one where that magical 45-degree line comes into play. From the initial centre-field camera, it appears as though he steps towards first; however from the final third-base camera, he pretty clearly splits the difference between first and home. I guess Mr. West thought he had too much direction towards home.

Nothing too controversial here, really.

[noumpere]

I don't think it has anything to do with the step and everything to do with the body lean toward the plate.  You can get the best (but not definitive) view of this at about the 0:50 mark.

[ricka56]

At a distance, we can discern in 2-dimensions (left/right/up/down). From 1B/3B it looks like F1's body moves towards HP. From HP/2B it looks like his body moves towards 1B. When F1 is near the acceptable 45 degree boundary, I can't see making a balk call. 

[maven]

46 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

When F1 is near the acceptable 45 degree boundary, I can't see making a balk call. 

The OBR rule offers specific guidance for borderline cases: in the last part of the balk rule, it states that, when in doubt (and ONLY then), we should rule based on whether F1's intent is to deceive the runner.

Kershaw clearly intended to deceive the runner: as others have noted, he uses this move frequently. So by rule the balk is supportable.

[ricka56]

1 minute ago, maven said:

The OBR rule offers specific guidance for borderline cases: in the last part of the balk rule, it states that, when in doubt (and ONLY then), we should rule based on whether F1's intent is to deceive the runner.

Kershaw clearly intended to deceive the runner: as others have noted, he uses this move frequently. So by rule the balk is supportable.

I cringe when my partner invokes that part of the rule. That is what it says, but you follow that suggestion, you'd be calling a lot of balks. And potentially turning your games to crap. 

[basejester]

33 minutes ago, maven said:

Kershaw clearly intended to deceive the runner: as others have noted, he uses this move frequently. So by rule the balk is supportable.

He obviously did attempt to deceive.  Nobody with half a brain is questioning that.  The question is whether or not the deceit was legal.

Seriously, why bother bringing this up?

[maven]

You answered your own question. When in doubt about the legality of the move, the pitcher's intent settles the matter. By rule.

The mistake umpires make is starting with intent. We can have intent to deceive without a balk, and we can have a balk without intent to deceive. We start with what's legal and what isn't. 99+% of the time, intent is irrelevant.

But when we have doubt about the legality, only then do we consider intent. And if a borderline move is intended to deceive, by rule it's a balk.

Seriously.

[ricka56]

I think that the intent to deceive  tie-breaker is a crutch, There are no ties, either its legal or it ain't. 

Edited June 8, 2016 by ricka56

[basejester]

11 minutes ago, maven said:

You answered your own question. When in doubt about the legality of the move, the pitcher's intent settles the matter. By rule.

The mistake umpires make is starting with intent. We can have intent to deceive without a balk, and we can have a balk without intent to deceive. We start with what's legal and what isn't. 99+% of the time, intent is irrelevant.

But when we have doubt about the legality, only then do we consider intent. And if a borderline move is intended to deceive, by rule it's a balk.

I think the point of the comment is very different than what you're suggesting.  It's not supposed to help us with step balks and such.  It's supposed to help us with this stuff:

The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate;

To adjudicate this, we should use intent.  Is the pitcher just stretching his arm?  Then don't balk it.  What if he does the same thing physically and then immediately attempts a pick-off?  Maybe that's a balk.

When a lefty lifts and then picks to first, he ALWAYS has intent to deceive.  It's a given.  So it's silly to say we're using intent to break the tie on whether or not such a move is legal.