Time/Balk

[Guest Strilla]

High school game. The entire game the pitcher is taking a rather long time to take signs and come set especially while in the stretch. During one at bat with a runner at second, the batter verbally asks for time before the pitcher starts his delivery, but realizes it after he starts his delivery and stops.  The umpire calls balk. The coach of the defense, points out the time call, and the umpire says ok, no balk.  So is it a balk or no balk?  I say balk as time doesn't occur until the umpire calls it.

[noumpere]

The general saying is that "the batter can't induce a balk."  It's a little hard to tell from your descriptoin, but I think that's what happened.

 

here's the FED rule (OBR is the sam, at least in concept):

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request "Time," it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew.

[Guest Strilla]

In this instance it was a verbal call of time, no movement by the batter.

[noumpere]

The concept is the same.  If the pitcher stopped because of the batter's actions in requesting time (and whether he did is umpire judgment), then it's nothing.  Start over from scratch.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, Guest Strilla said:

In this instance it was a verbal call of time, no movement by the batter.

I think it was Gerry Lane who hung his hat on that semantic note and balked an MLB pitcher for stopping when the batter asked for time. The next year MLB changed the rule wording to any inadvertent act by the batter. 

[Senor Azul]

I don’t know if it was umpire Jerry Layne who caused the amendment to rule 6.02(b) Comment but I can tell you that it was 2014 when the language first appeared in the OBR rule book--

The Official Playing Rules Committee made the following changes that will be in effect for the 2014 season:

• Amended Rule 6.02(b) Comment to nullify a balk caused by “inadvertent” actions by the batter. (Batter is no longer limited to stepping out of the batter’s box in order for the balk to be nullified.)

[Senor Azul]

To our guest Strilla, if you would like to read the rule (the whole citation is 6-2-4d) that Mr. noumpere cited here it is in its entirety with the other relevant rule that 6-2-4d refers to…

2019 NFHS rule 6-2-4d-

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request “Time,” it shall not be a balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call “Time” and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and (c), if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter’s action to be a deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1n.

NFHS rule 3

SECTION 3 BENCH AND FIELD CONDUCT

ART. 1 . . . A coach, player, substitute, attendant or other bench personnel shall not:

n. call “Time” or use any command or commit any act for the purpose of causing a balk;

[Velho]

11 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b)

 Does that say what I think it says (coffee is just kicking in)?

1 strike on the batter + batter steps out of the box with both feet + the pitcher delivers the ball from the rubber = the most majestic ring 'em up K ever?

[agdz59]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

 Does that say what I think it says (coffee is just kicking in)?

1 strike on the batter + batter steps out of the box with both feet + the pitcher delivers the ball from the rubber = the most majestic ring 'em up K ever?

It says what you think it says, yes.  

I've got to remember this - batter leaves box with both feet when pitcher is ready to pitch == strike.

[NavyBlue]

Don't get too excited, the pitcher must "legally deliver the ball" in order to get the strike in (a), (b), and (c).  You do get the first strike for (b) without the pitch.

One of the things that has always bugged me about this rule is that in (a), (b), and (c) the pitcher must have "stopped or hesitated in his delivery".  Is it possible to stop or hesitate and yet still "legally deliver the ball"?  If he stops in his delivery doesn't the pitch become illegal and therefore you can never meet the criteria to get the strike for the delivered ball?

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, NavyBlue said:

Don't get too excited, the pitcher must "legally deliver the ball" in order to get the strike in (a), (b), and (c).  You do get the first strike for (b) without the pitch.

One of the things that has always bugged me about this rule is that in (a), (b), and (c) the pitcher must have "stopped or hesitated in his delivery".  Is it possible to stop or hesitate and yet still "legally deliver the ball"?  If he stops in his delivery doesn't the pitch become illegal and therefore you can never meet the criteria to get the strike for the delivered ball?

1) The case play says "*IF* the pitcher legally delivers the ball..." -- so it's like a case (d); the pitcher doesn't stop or hesitate here

 

2) The penalty is for "delay" -- if the pitcher delivers the ball, there likely has been no delay.  There was some interp to this effect, but the case play never made it out of the book.  If you call it, you will be the only one.

 

[MadMax]

22 hours ago, Guest Strilla said:

During one at bat with a runner at second, the batter verbally asks for time before the pitcher starts his delivery, but realizes it after he starts his delivery and stops...

And in the majority of games we work, that vocalized asking of "time" is loud enough, and absent any other ambient noise, the F1 hears it and perceives it to be the PU calling "Time"... and stops / aborts / does something that isn't a legal step-off. I and my colleagues are never calling a Balk in this case. We simply call "Time" ourselves, explain to any offense coaches that that isn't a Balk because his Batter requesting Time affected the F1, remind / chastise the Batter to request Time properly (this changes per situation), reset everything, and proceed with the game again. 

This is why, when I'm working as a BU, I get annoyed at 3BCs who over-use the word "Time" (likely purposefully) in their coaching of their R1s and R2s (especially)... "You've got time, you've got time... " or worse... "walk off... walk off... more... "

[KenBAZ]

One of my pet peeves is Coaches instructing their players to, "call time". Something may be going on that doesn't allow me to grant their request and they are now operating under the assumption that by virtue of saying "time" or holding up there hand, play has been suspended.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk