Declining the extra base on a balk

[spark2212]

On June 14th, 2019 with a runner on second base and two outs in the top of the ninth inning, with the home team (LAD) holding a 2-0 lead, Kenley Jansen committed the so-called “intentional balk”—purportedly to prevent sign-stealing.

 

After the game, the opposing manager suggested that in the future, he might decline the extra base granted by the balk.

Can a team refuse to take one or more bases granted by the opposing team’s actions—such as a balk—without penalty (such as being declared out)?

Are there specific plays where such refusal is allowed but others (such as a base on balls) where the entitled runner(s) must advance?

[MT73]

Not on a balk.

Unless all runners, including the B/R, advance one base, the balk penalty is enforced.

A coach can decline a Catcher’s Interference penalty and take the result of the play if he should so choose.

[NavyBlue]

I believe the team can refuse to advance on the balk.    OBR 5.06(b)(3)  "Each runner, other than the batter, MAY without liability to be put out, advance one base when:  (A) There is a balk."  Doesn't state that they have to.

[mrumpiresir]

18 minutes ago, NavyBlue said:

I believe the team can refuse to advance on the balk.    OBR 5.06(b)(3)  "Each runner, other than the batter, MAY without liability to be put out, advance one base when:  (A) There is a balk."  Doesn't state that they have to.

No, that is not correct. 

The penalty for a balk;

PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk. The phrase " MAY without liability to be put out" means just what it says. He may advance without putting himself in peril of being put out.  The offense has no choice on the balk.

[Senor Azul]

2018 NFHS Rule 2 SECTION 3 BALK

A balk is an illegal act committed by the pitcher with a runner(s) on base which entitles each runner to advance one base.

2019-2020 NCAA rule 9-3 PENALTY for a. through m.—Balk. The ball becomes dead and each runner must advance one base.

2019 OBR rule 2 A BALK is an illegal act by the pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base.

5.06(c)(3) A balk is committed; runners advance; (See Penalty 6.02(a) (Penalty 8.05).)

6.02(a) PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

From the 2016 BRD (section 32, p. 38):

“BRD recommends:  At any game and at any level, if a kid doesn’t want to accept his award, eject him. The substitute will advance, you bet.”

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, NavyBlue said:

I believe the team can refuse to advance on the balk.    OBR 5.06(b)(3)  "Each runner, other than the batter, MAY without liability to be put out, advance one base when:  (A) There is a balk."  Doesn't state that they have to.

Further, a batter can't "refuse" a base-on-balls or a hit-by-pitch.

 

Still, it was a good try for only your 6th post here.

[beerguy55]

 

13 hours ago, spark2212 said:

On June 14th, 2019 with a runner on second base and two outs in the top of the ninth inning, with the home team (LAD) holding a 2-0 lead, Kenley Jansen committed the so-called “intentional balk”—purportedly to prevent sign-stealing.

 

After the game, the opposing manager suggested that in the future, he might decline the extra base granted by the balk.

 

He was kidding.   Tongue in cheek.   

It's a play on football's ability to decline penalties that don't improve, or make worse, your situation.   NHL coaches often joke when their team gives up a couple of short handed goals that they will decline the next penalty, as they obviously play worse with an extra man.

I'm actually surprised that a coach or announcer didn't argue that it shouldn't be a balk because Jansen couldn't possibly be deceiving the runner.

I suppose if it ever came to that, or it was ever decided that a team could refuse a balk, Jansen could step off the rubber and throw the ball into the stands to let the other team score an unearned run.

[pnewton]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

 

I suppose if it ever came to that, or it was ever decided that a team could refuse a balk, Jansen could step off the rubber and throw the ball into the stands to let the other team score an unearned run.

Or just do it from on the rubber and only move the runner the one base. Would be hard to do this with a pitch in current mlb stadiums, but still.

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

Further, a batter can't "refuse" a base-on-balls or a hit-by-pitch.

Still, it was a good try for only your 6th post here.

I was expecting your copyrighted reply: "If you never see it, there's probably a good reason."

[spark2212]

On 6/21/2019 at 7:03 AM, maven said:

I was expecting your copyrighted reply: "If you never see it, there's probably a good reason."

I went into this assuming the penalty could not be declined.

[bobloblaw]

On 6/20/2019 at 11:19 PM, mrumpiresir said:

No, that is not correct. 

The penalty for a balk;

PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk. The phrase " MAY without liability to be put out" means just what it says. He may advance without putting himself in peril of being put out.  The offense has no choice on the balk.

Coming back to this after Craig Kimbrel did it last night. Where does it say he "must" take the base? "Each runner shall advance..."- why does "shall' mean anything more than a choice? I understand that you cannot refuse a walk or hbp but this is not the same exact thing. Why are you so sure that this is the rule?

[Velho]

16 minutes ago, bobloblaw said:

why does "shall' mean anything more than a choice?

If it were a choice, "may" would be used.

There is no optionality in the word "shall". Not in the dictionary nor in practice for baseball rules.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/shall

[beerguy55]

35 minutes ago, bobloblaw said:

Coming back to this after Craig Kimbrel did it last night. Where does it say he "must" take the base? "Each runner shall advance..."- why does "shall' mean anything more than a choice? I understand that you cannot refuse a walk or hbp but this is not the same exact thing. Why are you so sure that this is the rule?

 

The word "shall" appears 810 times in OBR.  You proposing we apply the same "choice" to all of them?

Shall = must.

Technically shall=should too, but typically in corporate speak should="it's probably a good idea and will cover your ass" and shall=must.

Thankfully, the word "should" appears far less often in OBR, and much of the time it's as a condition (eg. should the runner fall) rather than a directive.

Otherwise, if we were to apply your logic throughout the OBR, then this rule (as just one example) would be meaningless...

In advancing, a runner shall touch first, second, third and home base in order

[johnnyg08]

On 10/4/2023 at 2:23 PM, bobloblaw said:

Coming back to this after Craig Kimbrel did it last night. Where does it say he "must" take the base? "Each runner shall advance..."- why does "shall' mean anything more than a choice? I understand that you cannot refuse a walk or hbp but this is not the same exact thing. Why are you so sure that this is the rule?

It's understood both by definition and common practice that the word "shall" is a requirement. (in all walks of life)