Balk called due to hybrid position

[Gfoley4]

http://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/05/12/2034333283/1526103049821/asset_1200K.mp4

[noumpere]

I wonder what the pitcher did (or didn't do) on the first pitch.

 

And did they nullify this pitch?

[umpstu]

I was watching the game and had no idea what he did or didn't do.  Still no clue.  And they did take the strike off the board.

[Jimurray]

That was not a hybrid or sideways delivery. It was a normal windup with normal foot position and a reposition to sideways during the windup. The only thing I can think of is that Nelson had a senior moment and woke up when the pitcher was sideways, as most normal windup pitchers do. So he thought he was a sideways pitcher who did not declare with R3. We would have to see more of the atbat to be clear but it does not make sense. 

[johnnyg08]

Horrible angle, but it's the best we have. This appears to be a hybrid stance doesn't it? 

I understand that this is a FED graphic, but I think it accurately depicts what the pitcher was doing here.

 

[noumpere]

Yes -- but I don't think that's the OBR rule.  That is, it's not illegal just because the free foot is in front of the rubber:

Rule 5.07(a)(1) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is
permitted to have his “free” foot on the rubber, in front of the
rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.

 

That said, there are some restrictions when runners are on base -- and I don't know how these were handled during the game, nor do I think the pitcher met the "assmumption" requirement highlighted:

With a runner or runners on base, a pitcher will be presumed to
be pitching from the Set Position if he stands with his pivot
foot in contact with and parallel to the pitcher’s plate, and his
other foot in front of the pitcher’s plate, unless he notifies the
umpire that he will be pitching from the Windup Position
under such circumstances prior to the beginning of an at-bat.
A pitcher will be permitted to notify the umpire that he is
pitching from the Windup Position within an at-bat only in the
event of (i) a substitution by the offensive team; or (ii) immediately
upon the advancement of one or more runners (i.e., after
one or more base runners advance but before the delivery of
the next pitch).

[johnnyg08]

4 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Yes -- but I don't think that's the OBR rule.  That is, it's not illegal just because the free foot is in front of the rubber:

Rule 5.07(a)(1) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is
permitted to have his “free” foot on the rubber, in front of the
rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.

 

That said, there are some restrictions when runners are on base -- and I don't know how these were handled during the game, nor do I think the pitcher met the "assmumption" requirement highlighted:

With a runner or runners on base, a pitcher will be presumed to
be pitching from the Set Position if he stands with his pivot
foot in contact with and parallel to the pitcher’s plate, and his
other foot in front of the pitcher’s plate, unless he notifies the
umpire that he will be pitching from the Windup Position
under such circumstances prior to the beginning of an at-bat.
A pitcher will be permitted to notify the umpire that he is
pitching from the Windup Position within an at-bat only in the
event of (i) a substitution by the offensive team; or (ii) immediately
upon the advancement of one or more runners (i.e., after
one or more base runners advance but before the delivery of
the next pitch).

I agree with you. I think this provision is in OBR to provide clarity on the "rocker step" from what appears to be the set position (not in this case, but in cases like it). Here's what MLBUM states:
 

 

[johnnyg08]

Here's the motion I think the rule is in place to cover. Thoughts? 

 

[noumpere]

Correct (I assume -- I see the initial screen capture, but didn't' watch the video.)  The question is -- if F1 started this way and pitched from the set on the first pitch, can he switch to the standard windup without notifying the umpires -- or is that ALSO prohibited by rule (the rule specifically prohibits pitching from the "sideways windup" unless declared before the first pitch).

 

And, we'll probably never know whether what they ruled or whether they kicked it.  IT's good for us to recognize what we should be thinking about in these situations, but further speculation on this particular call seems pointless, to me.

[johnnyg08]

Just now, noumpere said:

Correct (I assume -- I see the initial screen capture, but didn't' watch the video.)  The question is -- if F1 started this way and pitched from the set on the first pitch, can he switch to the standard windup without notifying the umpires -- or is that ALSO prohibited by rule (the rule specifically prohibits pitching from the "sideways windup" unless declared before the first pitch).

 

And, we'll probably never know whether what they ruled or whether they kicked it.  IT's good for us to recognize what we should be thinking about in these situations, but further speculation on this particular call seems pointless, to me.

Good point. Maybe we need to look back on the entire at bat? I'll see if I can find the at bat. 

 

[johnnyg08]

I looked at both feeds and they're both the same. Here's the San Diego feed:

 

[Jimurray]

31 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I looked at both feeds and they're both the same. Here's the San Diego feed:

 

Gregerson's windup stance is as as close to an MLB "normal" windup as you will see and the free foot is a little ahead of the almost perpendicular pivot foot. There is no mistaking his parallel pivot foot set position which he used just prior with R2. So unless there is an interp we don't know about he should not have to declare his windup because he is not a "sideways" pitcher. Nelson balked him on the second windup pitch and most likely because he didn't "declare". He got together with his befuddled partners and none of them appeared to know enough to question him. Once Gregerson got back on the mound after the balk he looked over at Nelson and indicated that he was winding up. Nelson nodded but did not call time and indicate that as per the MLBUM instruction. The befuddled manager bought Nelson's story so no protest, no problem. MLB will let us all know if there is an interp we are not aware of

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

Gregerson's windup stance is as as close to an MLB "normal" windup as you will see and the free foot is a little ahead of the almost perpendicular pivot foot. There is no mistaking his parallel pivot foot set position which he used just prior with R2. So unless there is an interp we don't know about he should not have to declare his windup because he is not a "sideways" pitcher. Nelson balked him on the second windup pitch and most likely because he didn't "declare". He got together with his befuddled partners and none of them appeared to know enough to question him. Once Gregerson got back on the mound after the balk he looked over at Nelson and indicated that he was winding up. Nelson nodded but did not call time and indicate that as per the MLBUM instruction. The befuddled manager bought Nelson's story so no protest, no problem. MLB will let us all know if there is an interp we are not aware of

There wasn't anybody on base so there was no need to declare after the fact. The F1 was being a smart a$$

[Jimurray]

1 minute ago, johnnyg08 said:

There wasn't anybody on base so there was no need to declare after the fact. The F1 was being a smart a$$

Yes but since he was balked for no good reason who knows if they were gonna illegal pitch him with no one on.

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Jimurray said:

Yes but since he was balked for no good reason who knows if they were gonna illegal pitch him with no one on.

Perhaps, but he was attempting to shove it up Nelson's you know what. After the game, he even threw the ball in his (the crew's) direction. 

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Perhaps, but he was attempting to shove it up Nelson's you know what. After the game, he even threw the ball in his (the crew's) direction. 

He should have been all over his manager for no "P".

[johnnyg08]

2 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He should have been all over his manager for no "P".

Would this have been judgment though as to whether or not he was in the proper pitching position? 

Judgment and proper enforcement based upon that judgment?

 

 

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

Would this have been judgment though as to whether or not he was in the proper pitching position? 

Judgment and proper enforcement based upon that judgment?

 

 

He would have to ask Nelson if he judged the balk windup started with a parallel pivot foot. If yes, even though a very bad judgment, no protest. If no, a possible protest. 

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Yes but since he was balked for no good reason who knows if they were gonna illegal pitch him with no one on.

Not relevant in OBR -- the issue is only with runners on.

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Perhaps, but he was attempting to shove it up Nelson's you know what. After the game, he even threw the ball in his (the crew's) direction. 

I can't really blame him -- assuming what we have cobbled together here is close to the truth.

[umpstu]

From MLB.Com article dated May 12.     

Umps on line 1
Matheny talked with the umpiring crew about Friday's ninth-inning balk called on reliever Luke Gregersonby third-base umpire Jeff Nelson. There was confusion as to whether Gregerson was working out of the stretch or from his windup. Matheny said both parties were satisfied after the conversation.

"They called me about it," Matheny said. "[Gregerson] didn't do anything wrong. It's a shame because that's an earned run that just can't be taken away."

[noumpere]

MLB umpires mess up.  Admit error in professional way.  Apology accepted in professional manner.  Parties move on.

 

I think there's a lesson or two for all of us there.

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, noumpere said:

MLB umpires mess up.  Admit error in professional way.  Apology accepted in professional manner.  Parties move on.

 

I think there's a lesson or two for all of us there.

Would they rule on a protest since the result would have been moot except for the earned run? 

Sometimes our assigning rationale backfires. " Lets put these three with Nelson. They are weak on rules and he's good"

[noumpere]

No -- they don't rule on protests for "stats" -- only for game results.

[BT_Blue]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

MLB umpires mess up.  Admit error in professional way.  Apology accepted in professional manner.  Parties move on.

 

I think there's a lesson or two for all of us there.

One that will be quickly ignored.