Balk Questioning by nice (ignorant) coach

[Jimurray]

45 minutes ago, Richvee said:

Here's a problem I've faced missing the first no stop balk.....The OHC doesn't. "Blue that's a balk he didn't stop".  next pitch, he blows though the stop again, you call it. Now DHC is yapping you let OHC talk you into calling the balk. What's a good reply to the DHC?

We take turns calling balks. My partner missed the first one.

[kstrunk]

8 hours ago, Richvee said:

Here's a problem I've faced missing the first no stop balk.....The OHC doesn't. "Blue that's a balk he didn't stop".  next pitch, he blows though the stop again, you call it. Now DHC is yapping you let OHC talk you into calling the balk. What's a good reply to the DHC?

If the offensive coach starts complaining about a pitch, perhaps one that we're sure we kicked, is that going to keep us from getting the next one right in fear that the defensive coach will accuse us of pandering? Are we going to radically change our zone to try to accommodate both coaches? Or, are we going to shut down the offensive coach, defensive coach, or whomever starts yapping, and be true to the rules and our own conscience?

My answer to your question is this: 'Coach, we don't argue about, or appeal balks in baseball, that was a no-stop balk, we're done.'. 

The only other alternative is to decide you're not going to call balks for a few innings, or for the rest of that game. 

[DWDIII]

btw - Fed took calling "time" first out of their mechanics two years ago, so just call "balk" then you can say "time" if you need to. (Added benefit - This may save you from killing a play when you are working OBR)

[KenBAZ]

btw - Fed took calling "time" first out of their mechanics two years ago, so just call "balk" then you can say "time" if you need to. (Added benefit - This may save you from killing a play when you are working OBR)

This is good news to me. Where did you see it? I spend the first couple of weeks of HS season practicing, "Time, that's a balk!".

 

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[kstrunk]

1 hour ago, DWDIII said:

btw - Fed took calling "time" first out of their mechanics two years ago, so just call "balk" then you can say "time" if you need to. (Added benefit - This may save you from killing a play when you are working OBR)

This is EXCELLENT news to me, as I've killed a couple in summer OBR season because of that habit of calling 'time' first! I'm now fixed of it, but it's been an annual thing for me, I'm slow, ya know...

[lawump]

7 hours ago, DWDIII said:

btw - Fed took calling "time" first out of their mechanics two years ago, so just call "balk" then you can say "time" if you need to. (Added benefit - This may save you from killing a play when you are working OBR)

Glad we could help.  That is, in fact, why we changed it.

[VolUmp]

1 hour ago, lawump said:

Glad we could help.  That is, in fact, why we changed it.

Law, Why is it that you always jump in to take credit (e.g. "We" changed it) for fixing the tiny insignificant flaws like this one, but ignore the REAL and SIGNIFICANT ones ... like, let's say ... the BALK RULE in general, which punishes the Offense for a Defensive infraction if the batter gets a run-scoring base hit with a man on 2nd?  Or the Baserunner designations which do nothing but confuse everyone?  Or rules and casebook plays that directly contradict each other?  Do something remarkable, and then name drop and toot your own horn all you want.

[Kevin_K]

2 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Law, Why is it that you always jump in to take credit (e.g. "We" changed it) for fixing the tiny insignificant flaws like this one, but ignore the REAL and SIGNIFICANT ones ... like, let's say ... the BALK RULE in general, which punishes the Offense for a Defensive infraction if the batter gets a run-scoring base hit with a man on 2nd?  Or the Baserunner designations which do nothing but confuse everyone?  Or rules and casebook plays that directly contradict each other?  Do something remarkable, and then name drop and toot your own horn all you want.

If I may be so bold @lawump....

Changes that come from a committee have to have agreement among the group that may include a majority, a super majority, or in some cases unanimity. To say that any one member of the group is ignoring what anyone perceives as a "REAL and SIGNIFICANT" fails to recognize that other committee members are equal to all other members of the group and can influence the decisions of others from perspectives that digress from what anyone else may perceive as changes that are needed.

That there is progress in certain places ought to bring a heartfelt thank you rather than a rebuke for not doing what may not be possible.Only one member of this community seems to be a member of the rules committee for FED and that one voice may be the only one that has practical experience in applying the rules. Other members of the same committee may approach the process from a significantly different vantage point and see no need to align with other rule sets as those rule sets may be designed for far more capable athletes.

Keep in mind that this rule set is designed for players from 14 years of age as well. The rules have to consider the lesser abilities of athletes at the sub-varsity level and allow for their safety in addition to their skill.

I applaud the efforts and I am glad to know there is at least one member of the committee who represents the third team.

[Jimurray]

4 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Law, Why is it that you always jump in to take credit (e.g. "We" changed it) for fixing the tiny insignificant flaws like this one, but ignore the REAL and SIGNIFICANT ones ... like, let's say ... the BALK RULE in general, which punishes the Offense for a Defensive infraction if the batter gets a run-scoring base hit with a man on 2nd?  Or the Baserunner designations which do nothing but confuse everyone?  Or rules and casebook plays that directly contradict each other?  Do something remarkable, and then name drop and toot your own horn all you want.

You do realize that that "they" is a committee comprised of a certain number of coaches and officials ( I think more coaches than oficials)? Google the rule changes put on the agenda for this committees vote and thank @lawump for his participation on the committee.

[VolUmp]

Lawump Stated on this forum that Runner Designations were "next" to be tackled, now that umpire designations are fixed. 

Thats comparing a 9 to a 2 on the relevance scale. 

I communicated directly with Elliott Hoskins who told me FED "has no interest" in changing (fixing) runner designations. He evidently doesn't think they're broken.  How can a group of coaches and officials fail to get the committee to recognize this mockery?

The balk rule is bad; wrong; unfair. It's leftover from the pre-1958 MLB rule which finally realized how bad of a rule it was when RBIs and home runs were taken off the board for a defensive infraction.  There is no vantage point that can call this rule good, right, or fair. There is no safety consideration. How can a group of coaches and officials fail to get the committee to recognize this mockery?

It finally happened to me this season. We called a no-stop balk and the batter hit it out of the park with two men on.

LawUmp, I thank you for your attempt at serving a good purpose for the third team.  It would seem that the committee members who sit in the catbird seats are inept.  I'm not sure what you are accomplishing.

[lawump]

9 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Lawump Stated on this forum that Runner Designations were "next" to be tackled, now that umpire designations are fixed. 

Thats comparing a 9 to a 2 on the relevance scale. 

15 hours ago, VolUmp said:

Law, Why is it that you always jump in to take credit (e.g. "We" changed it) for fixing the tiny insignificant flaws like this one, but ignore the REAL and SIGNIFICANT ones ... like, let's say ... the BALK RULE in general, which punishes the Offense for a Defensive infraction if the batter gets a run-scoring base hit with a man on 2nd?  Or the Baserunner designations which do nothing but confuse everyone?  Or rules and casebook plays that directly contradict each other?  Do something remarkable, and then name drop and toot your own horn all you want.

 

First of all, the umpire's mechanics manual...which is what I was responding to...was a sub-committee of three.  All of three of us were umpires and we led the changes that came out in the umpire's manual.  (It was nice to have umpires writing the umpire's manual).  

As for the "9 to 2" comment...make sure you come back and re-start this thread when you get your 2018 Casebook.  I won't say anything further at this time.  You can read between the lines.

[lawump]

12 hours ago, Kevin_K said:

If I may be so bold @lawump....

Changes that come from a committee have to have agreement among the group that may include a majority, a super majority, or in some cases unanimity. To say that any one member of the group is ignoring what anyone perceives as a "REAL and SIGNIFICANT" fails to recognize that other committee members are equal to all other members of the group and can influence the decisions of others from perspectives that digress from what anyone else may perceive as changes that are needed.

That there is progress in certain places ought to bring a heartfelt thank you rather than a rebuke for not doing what may not be possible.Only one member of this community seems to be a member of the rules committee for FED and that one voice may be the only one that has practical experience in applying the rules. Other members of the same committee may approach the process from a significantly different vantage point and see no need to align with other rule sets as those rule sets may be designed for far more capable athletes.

Keep in mind that this rule set is designed for players from 14 years of age as well. The rules have to consider the lesser abilities of athletes at the sub-varsity level and allow for their safety in addition to their skill.

I applaud the efforts and I am glad to know there is at least one member of the committee who represents the third team.

Also, do not forget that any rule change that is passed by the rules committee must be approved by: (1) the sports medicine committee (they must certify that the rule change will not result in an increased risk of injury, etc.) (2) and the executive committee that runs NFHS.

Without going into specifics, there have been rule changes passed by the baseball rules committee which I think the vast majority of posters on this forum would be in favor of, which have been rejected by the executive committee.  That is a fact.  The system is designed for change to be slow.  Can it be frustrating?  Yes?  But, one keeps plugging away for the 4 years that one is on the committee.

[jms1425]

Umpteen coaches, in various wordings: "Nobody's called that all year!"

Me: "I'm sorry to hear that, Coach, but we're gonna get it right today."

[VolUmp]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

1) the sports medicine committee

Law,

Do you believe he balk rule is bad? Unfair? Antiquated?

There is ZERO concern by the sports medicine committee over the balk rule. 

PLEASE tell us in plain English why this rule has never been fixed?  Cut the "mysterious" language.

The only thing I can figure is the non officials and coaches don't really understand how egregious the rule is. And I don't see how you and the coaches can't make an indisputable  and strong case to adopt the OBR balk rule. 

Are they telling you to your face that they feel that not enough officials are smart enough to call it and enforce it properly?

[lawump]

59 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

Law,

Do you believe he balk rule is bad? Unfair? Antiquated?

There is ZERO concern by the sports medicine committee over the balk rule. 

PLEASE tell us in plain English why this rule has never been fixed?  Cut the "mysterious" language.

The only thing I can figure is the non officials and coaches don't really understand how egregious the rule is. And I don't see how you and the coaches can't make an indisputable  and strong case to adopt the OBR balk rule. 

Are they telling you to your face that they feel that not enough officials are smart enough to call it and enforce it properly?

I am not going to explain in detail on this forum how the rules writing process works...with regards to any rule...much less the rule you've decided is your pet peeve.  It has been said many times by many posters that the NFHS has a lot of constituencies...of which the game officials (in this case, umpires) are only one.  You have coaches, state administrators, sports medicine, and NFHS executives who constitute just some of the other constituencies that have a voice in the rule writing process.  You can go to the NFHS website and see a video, which is available to the public, on the NFHS rules writing process.

As for your feelings about the balk rule, which you have clearly set forth in this thread, I can assure you that there are others (including some umpires) who are as passionate in arguing that the balk rule should not be changed as you are in arguing that it should be changed.  Your view is not even close to being the unanimous view among umpires...including some very talented umpires...much less among all constituencies.  

Before you throw stones at the NFHS, or the rules committee, maybe you should go after some of your brothers in blue.  For as passionate as you are about changing the NFHS balk rule, I have been contacted by other umpires who have expressed their passion that the rule not be changed.  (Not to mention coaches who have expressed their support for the current rule as well.)  You are implying and/or assuming in your posts that all umpires are united that the NFHS balk rule should be changed.  That is wrong.

[And, no, I will not express...on this board or any other message board...my personal view (or the personal view of any other committee member) about any rule in the NFHS rulebook that may come up for a vote during my tenure on the board.]

[VolUmp]

You speak about your tenure on the board like you're a mover and shaker in Washington DC reviewing the Comey/Trump hearings. 

I have been with my association for 13 years, and I can assure you it is unanimous, that the approximately 120 umpires in our Association and the 75 Head Coaches of th schools represented all see the balk rule as "FOLLY" the way it is currently written and enforced by FED. 

Give us something, Law, give me an example of an Umpire on the Rules Committee who feels the balk rule should remain as is, and why he feels that way. In doing so you would not be breaking any confidence. I wouldn't know the umpire or even the state in which he resides. 

[KenBAZ]

I for one feel fortunate that@lawump chooses to post here. While bringing the Fed balk rule in line with OBR would make my life easier, I recognize that that opinion may not be held by all umpires. Reading what people who are involved in the rules making process have to say is of interest and value to me even if there are constraints on what can be discussed.

Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, VolUmp said:

You speak about your tenure on the board like you're a mover and shaker in Washington DC reviewing the Comey/Trump hearings. 

I have been with my association for 13 years, and I can assure you it is unanimous, that the approximately 120 umpires in our Association and the 75 Head Coaches of th schools represented all see the balk rule as "FOLLY" the way it is currently written and enforced by FED. 

Give us something, Law, give me an example of an Umpire on the Rules Committee who feels the balk rule should remain as is, and why he feels that way. In doing so you would not be breaking any confidence. I wouldn't know the umpire or even the state in which he resides. 

If it's unanimous your state could adopt the OBR balk rule on its own and use FED for everything else. I think there could be NFHS ramifications as to representation on committees. Florida changed the DH rule. I don't know if FED penalized them. 

[conbo61]

2 hours ago, VolUmp said:

You speak about your tenure on the board like you're a mover and shaker in Washington DC reviewing the Comey/Trump hearings. 

I have been with my association for 13 years, and I can assure you it is unanimous, that the approximately 120 umpires in our Association and the 75 Head Coaches of th schools represented all see the balk rule as "FOLLY" the way it is currently written and enforced by FED. 

Give us something, Law, give me an example of an Umpire on the Rules Committee who feels the balk rule should remain as is, and why he feels that way. In doing so you would not be breaking any confidence. I wouldn't know the umpire or even the state in which he resides. 

 

[lawump]

2 hours ago, VolUmp said:

You speak about your tenure on the board like you're a mover and shaker in Washington DC reviewing the Comey/Trump hearings. 

I have been with my association for 13 years, and I can assure you it is unanimous, that the approximately 120 umpires in our Association and the 75 Head Coaches of th schools represented all see the balk rule as "FOLLY" the way it is currently written and enforced by FED. 

Give us something, Law, give me an example of an Umpire on the Rules Committee who feels the balk rule should remain as is, and why he feels that way. In doing so you would not be breaking any confidence. I wouldn't know the umpire or even the state in which he resides. 

Now you're just being obtuse.  And no amount of facetious begging on your part is going to get me to divulge any committee member's views on any topic...whether they were to remain anonymous by name or not.

I told you that I've had umpires (from around the country) specifically tell me directly they don't want the balk rule changed.  Specifically, they value it's simplicity over the occasional unfairness to a batter.  (Their words, not mine.). It is certainly not unanimous...and I would say, based on my experiences, that a majority agree with your view...but it is not unanimous as you incorrectly implied/asserted.  If you choose not to believe me that's your right/problem.

 

[dumbdumb]

2 hours ago, lawump said:

Now you're just being obtuse.  And no amount of facetious begging on your part is going to get me to divulge any committee member's views on any topic...whether they were to remain anonymous by name or not.

I told you that I've had umpires (from around the country) specifically tell me directly they don't want the balk rule changed.  Specifically, they value it's simplicity over the occasional unfairness to a batter.  (Their words, not mine.). It is certainly not unanimous...and I would say, based on my experiences, that a majority agree with your view...but it is not unanimous as you incorrectly implied/asserted.  If you choose not to believe me that's your right/problem.

 

Did you change occupations law ump. I have some boxes that need a "mover". You can "shake" your booty anytime, but I prefer not to watch.

any of us who could probably fall under the category that is called a mover and shaker, does not mean that we can move or shake the others enough to always win the day.

Just because Tennessee (did I spell that right ???  T e double n e double s double e   Tennessee---is 100% in line with OBR doesn't mean the other 49 all move in lock step.

Cripes, it took MLB till the cows came home and one timely home run, to get rid of that rule that cheapskate Calvin Griffith had installed and everyone knew stunk, but was clearly worded.

And even then, they messed up by not allowing the rule as written to be called exactly as it was called and should have been enforced for the last time ever, by rebuking the umpires correct enforcement of the rule as written.

If they had done it right, they would have been enforcing the rule as written and backing the umpires, then they should have changed the rule in the next breath going forward to what it should have always been and was indeed changed to. Just go ask that guy near you in Myrtle Beach and in the Elon Hall of Fame with Joe West and Kay Yow, and unfortunately the rule wiz of that crew has passed on.

Maybe at some point this balk can be changed to OBR, but for now it stays, no matter how much you move and shake.

Keep giving your insights lawump, even when you cannot give out the entire company secrets. I for one, have enjoyed your commentary.

[VolUmp]

5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

If it's unanimous your state could adopt the OBR balk rule on its own and use FED for everything else. I think there could be NFHS ramifications as to representation on committees. Florida changed the DH rule. I don't know if FED penalized them. 

Excellent thought.  I never understood how FL made that happen, and if TN gets penalized, I know our state won't go for it, but it's still the best idea I've heard yet. 

Now — I did say it's unanimous among my Association and coaches/schools within.  I'd have to ask our state director about the nine other Associations.

[VolUmp]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

Specifically, they value it's simplicity over the occasional unfairness to a batter.  (Their words, not mine.).

OK — thank you, Law. That's at least something I can digest. I do realize that "most balks are immediately dead" regardless of the rule set, and it's that part of the rule set that is "occasionally" unfair to the batter that grates on me ... but if there are officials and/or coaches who take the "simplicity" factor over what is "right" or what is "fair," then as much as I hate hearing it, and disagree with it, I do at least understand it.

if there are ANY coaches and/or officials who are willing to settle for simplicity, then there is ZERO hope of having this rule fixed.  And YES, I will continue to say FIXED, not AMENDED, ALTERED, CHANGED, or any other more PC term, because "occasionally unfair" when its avoidable is wrong.  It's broken.

Best example I can give of a rule that is occasionally unfair, but not BROKEN is the GRD.  Many times a runner clearly would have scored from 1B when a gapper bounces over the HR fence, but there are far too many scenarios where that may not be the case, and the only way to amend that rule is bring umpire judgment into it.  I don't like that because no "infraction" has occurred (e.g. Placing runners after an OBS call).

[Jimurray]

13 minutes ago, VolUmp said:

OK — thank you, Law. That's at least something I can digest. I do realize that "most balks are immediately dead" regardless of the rule set, and it's that part of the rule set that is "occasionally" unfair to the batter that grates on me ... but if there are officials and/or coaches who take the "simplicity" factor over what is "right" or what is "fair," then as much as I hate hearing it, and disagree with it, I do at least understand it.

if there are ANY coaches and/or officials who are willing to settle for simplicity, then there is ZERO hope of having this rule fixed.  And YES, I will continue to say FIXED, not AMENDED, ALTERED, CHANGED, or any other more PC term, because "occasionally unfair" when its avoidable is wrong.  It's broken.

Best example I can give of a rule that is occasionally unfair, but not BROKEN is the GRD.  Many times a runner clearly would have scored from 1B when a gapper bounces over the HR fence, but there are far too many scenarios where that may not be the case, and the only way to amend that rule is bring umpire judgment into it.  I don't like that because no "infraction" has occurred (e.g. Placing runners after an OBS call).

There would be some rare "unfair", at least opinionated by the offense,   results using the OBR balk rule. Do you want to remedy all unfair OBR et. al. rules that might have an "unfair" result? 

[VolUmp]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

There would be some rare "unfair", at least opinionated by the offense,   results using the OBR balk rule. Do you want to remedy all unfair OBR et. al. rules that might have an "unfair" result? 

I don't understand the question. 

I stated above:

"occasionally unfair" when its avoidable is wrong.  It's broken."

So, no, I fully recognize not every rule can guarantee fairness 100% of the time.  The balk rule, as FED has it written, is not one of those rules.  A balk is a defensive infraction. There should NEVER be an advantage given to the defense following a defensive infraction.

I watched R1 & R2 and a balk, followed by a batter hitting the pitch 340' over the left field wall. End result: runners moved up a base. Batter stayed in the box, grounded out, and ended the inning. A 3-run HR was taken away from the young man because of an ill-conceived and antiquated rule.

Jimurray, please don't rebut this ... I have explained it the very simplest of terms.

Give me an example of where the OBR Rule could work out worse for the offense.