Balk, CI on same pitch.

[VolUmp]

Happened last night — Basic to some — Confusing to others.

 

SITCH A:  OBR Rules Set.  R2.  No outs. 

Pitcher (from set) blows through with no stop.  Both umps call balk in unison.

Batter swings and hits the catcher's mitt.  PU points to catcher and states, "Catcher INT!"

Batter puts ball in play, single up the middle, and reaches 1B easily.

R2 was stealing on the pitch.

What's the call??

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

SITCH B:  OBR Rules Set.  R2.  No outs. 

Pitcher (from set) blows through with no stop.  Both umps call balk in unison.

Batter swings and hits the catcher's mitt.  PU points to catcher and states, "Catcher INT!"

Batter puts ball in play, grounds out 4-3.

R2 was stealing on the pitch.

What's the call??

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

[udbrky]

A - both advanced a base, the play stands.

 

B - Both did not advance a base. I'm going CI since that would take precedence over the balk (both are live ball), BR goes to 1B, R2 goes back to 2nd. But, they can choose to take the balk, no pitch, R2 to 3B and batter resumes count prior to pitch.

[noumpere]

5 hours ago, udbrky said:

But, they can choose to take the balk,

There's no choice on a balk -- there is a choice on the CI.  The answer will depend on what the offense chooses. (and this play, or a variant of it) has gone around since the interwebs was invented, -- mostly with no consensus.

[MT73]

 #1 Play Stands.

#2 Because CI places batter on first and R2 advanced on the steal the balk is nullified.

However the Offensive coach can choose to ignore the CI and enforce the balk so R2 stays on second and batter is back at the plate with the same count as before the balk.

 

In Fed a balk is a dead ball so the CI is ignored and the balk enforced.

[udbrky]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

There's no choice on a balk -- there is a choice on the CI.  The answer will depend on what the offense chooses. (and this play, or a variant of it) has gone around since the interwebs was invented, -- mostly with no consensus.

Yes, I meant to take the play and ignore the CI, thus, the balk.

[MT73]

Only  enforce the balk after the batter has reached 1B and coach wants the results of the balk as opposed to the CI.

 

 

[ALStripes17]

A - both advanced a base, the play stands.
 
B - Both did not advance a base. I'm going CI since that would take precedence over the balk (both are live ball), BR goes to 1B, R2 goes back to 2nd. But, they can choose to take the balk, no pitch, R2 to 3B and batter resumes count prior to pitch.

Runners advance on CI enforcement if they were stealing when CI occurs. R2 will never go back to 2B in this situation (for delayed dead ball balk rulesets obviously).

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[ALStripes17]

Only  enforce the balk after the batter has reached 1B and coach wants the results of the balk as opposed to the CI.
 
 

I imagine you mean the coach declines the option of enforcing CI, thus, taking the result of the balk play?

I only ask because your verbiage makes it sound like the coach chooses the balk. And there is always confusion with that verbiage because the offense never gets the option of taking the balk.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[MT73]

2 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

I imagine you mean the coach declines the option of enforcing CI, thus, taking the result of the balk play?

I only ask because your verbiage makes it sound like the coach chooses the balk. And there is always confusion with that verbiage because the offense never gets the option of taking the balk.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

Coach gets to decline the CI.

If he does the runner stays at third and batter is back up.

[udbrky]

5 hours ago, ALStripes17 said:

Runners advance on CI enforcement if they were stealing when CI occurs. R2 will never go back to 2B in this situation (for delayed dead ball balk rulesets obviously).

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

Thanks for pointing that out

[MT73]

They also advanced if forced.

[VolUmp]

There is NEVER a coach election on a balk.

In Japan, there is NEVER a coach erection on a balk.

[VolUmp]

On 5/13/2017 at 0:23 PM, MT73 said:

Coach gets to decline the CI.

If he does the runner stays at third and batter is back up.

While theoretically possible and legal, no coach would ever do this unless he had Babe Ruth at the plate.

[ALStripes17]

While theoretically possible and legal, no coach would ever do this unless he had Babe Ruth at the plate.

They most definitely would if the next hitter in the lineup isn't as likely to hit a deep pop fly or is more likely to hit into a ground ball double play. Much more possible in lower levels one could reason.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Stk004]

On 5/13/2017 at 5:36 AM, MT73 said:

 #1 Play Stands.

#2 Because CI places batter on first and R2 advanced on the steal the balk is nullified.

However the Offensive coach can choose to ignore the CI and enforce the balk so R2 stays on second and batter is back at the plate with the same count as before the balk.

 

In Fed a balk is a dead ball so the CI is ignored and the balk enforced.

Hold on a second. You can't mix the result of the play and the CI to satisfy the balk requirement. Did the play result in the BR reaching 1B and R2 advancing to third? No. Does enforcement of CI allow the batter to reach 1B and R2 to advance to third? No. So, we enforce the balk. R2 gets third base and the BR is back up. 

[ALStripes17]

Hold on a second. You can't mix the result of the play and the CI to satisfy the balk requirement. Did the play result in the BR reaching 1B and R2 advancing to third? No. Does enforcement of CI allow the batter to reach 1B and R2 to advance to third? No. So, we enforce the balk. R2 gets third base and the BR is back up. 

CI allows the R2 to advance to 3B if he was stealing on the pitch!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Stk004]

1 minute ago, ALStripes17 said:

CI allows the R2 to advance to 3B if he was stealing on the pitch!

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 

That's just a FED thing though, isn't it?

[ALStripes17]

That's just a FED thing though, isn't it?

No. It's in all rule codes. You're not gonna disadvantage the runner from gaining the next base because the defense screwed the pooch by interfering.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[Stk004]

Just now, ALStripes17 said:

No. It's in all rule codes. You're not gonna disadvantage the runner from gaining the next base because the defense screwed the pooch by interfering.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

Cite for OBR? I believe you, I just don't recall ever seeing that. 

[ALStripes17]

Cite for OBR? I believe you, I just don't recall ever seeing that. 

5.06 (b)(3)(D)

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[VolUmp]

3 hours ago, Stk004 said:

Hold on a second. You can't mix the result of the play and the CI to satisfy the balk requirement. Did the play result in the BR reaching 1B and R2 advancing to third? No. Does enforcement of CI allow the batter to reach 1B and R2 to advance to third? No. So, we enforce the balk. R2 gets third base and the BR is back up. 

Wow.  Just WOW.

[VolUmp]

3 hours ago, Stk004 said:

That's just a FED thing though, isn't it?

No. (As AlStripes has already said).  It's just a minor miracle that FED hasn't screwed this one up.

There is ALWAYS a history to rules such as this.  The catcher could intentionally interfere with the batter if he sees R2 stealing, and in his mind, putting the batter on 1st and sending R2 back simply sets up a force at any base.  In other words ... catchers used to do that, so the rule was fixed to close that loophole.

[Replacematt]

53 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

No. (As AlStripes has already said).  It's just a minor miracle that FED hasn't screwed this one up.

There is ALWAYS a history to rules such as this.  The catcher could intentionally interfere with the batter if he sees R2 stealing, and in his mind, putting the batter on 1st and sending R2 back simply sets up a force at any base.  In other words ... catchers used to do that, so the rule was fixed to close that loophole.

FED has screwed this one up, just not in the way that would affect the OP. They don't have a balk when it's R3 stealing (as someone pointed out in a recent thread on this, most likely because a balk is immediately dead.) I wish they would just rewrite it so the penalty is the same as all other codes, and just say that all runners are awarded their advance base in that situation. Different words, same result.

[MT73]

Hold on .

In Fed a balk is a dead ball so the CI --catcher's obstruction in FED--never happened.

R2 goes to 3rd and batter is up with the same count as before the balk.

[ALStripes17]

Hold on .
In Fed a balk is a dead ball so the CI --catcher's obstruction in FED--never happened.
R2 goes to 3rd and batter is up with the same count as before the balk.

Correct. I don't see where anyone disputed that.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk