Balk or no balk or do over.

[Mister B]

R1 and R3, pitcher on the mound starts his delivery and it appears that the ball slips out of his hand hits the turf then bounces and rolls toward the 1B line, but does not cross the line. The pitcher walks over to the ball and picks it up. (I was a spectator at my son's game)

The PU ruled that the pitcher completed his pitch and that the ball wasn't dropped. A ball was awarded. I asked another brother today before our game and he claims that he would have ruled it a no-pitch and do-over. 

I did email the PU and he said that a pitch and dropped ball are mutually exclusive. And that the pitcher had completed his pitch and therefore could not have dropped it. I can't find anything regarding the definition of a pitch. Legal or illegal. 

The rules appear to back me up, except for the dropped during delivery part, as the PU claims it was not dropped. 

I'm very confused. 

 

Bonus WTF moment. Today I was on the bases in a lower level varsity game. R1 takes off on a pick-off and when he turns around to go back to first, he runs directly at F3, who is trying to get around the runner and is a good 10 feet off of the base path. R1 braces for impact and runs into F3. I immediately call time and call interference as it appeared to me that R1 intentionally ran into F3. Instead of ruling, I immediately go to my partner and explain the dilemma, by rule this is obstruction as F3 didn't have the ball and the runner defines his own base line, but the runner ran directly at F3 who was trying to get out of the way. I also realize that even though this is a varsity match, these are not the best coached/playing teams. The 1B coach told me that they have 5 starters that have never played baseball before. I decide to eat crow and call obstruction and award the runner 2B. I think most of the people think I confused obstruction and interference. But I called interference because I was thinking WTF is R1 doing running at F3, and it did seem intentional. Immediately after calling it, I realized that I don't have a rule to back up the interference call outside of a malicious contact call, which wouldn't have made sense as F3 was more than twice the size of R1.  Maybe he realized that he was going to get thrown out, so he chased an obstruction call and got it. 

[SH0102]

Ball has to cross the foul line (or plate) to be a pitch. If he was engaged with the rubber and drops the ball and it doesn’t cross foul line, it’s a balk. Sounds like you knew that bc you even mentioned it didn’t cross the foul line.

In the rundown, the runner is out. You do have a rule, and again, you said it, “intentional”.  It’s alwYs tough to judge intent, but if he deviated to initiate contact, that’s intentional and he’s out. It is entirely possible to have interference w/out malicious. Good example is a runner swatting at the fielders glove to dislodge the ball. “Int, time, he’s out, runners can not advance any further”. 
 

If you allow this, you are supporting the new strategy of every run down, just chase a fielder and run into them and you’re home free

[maven]

3 hours ago, SH0102 said:

If you allow this, you are supporting the new strategy of every run down, just chase a fielder and run into them and you’re home free

This strategy is far from new, and actively coached by 2 good HS teams in my area.

Depending on the situation, I have called OBS, INT, and nothing.

OBS: if the runner times it right and turns into the fielder just after he has thrown the ball, this can look pretty good (like "real" OBS). And the fielder shouldn't have thrown the ball when so close to the runner.

INT: if the runner deviates significantly and in a way that hinders the fielder, I'll get INT due to the intentional hindrance.

Nothing: if the runner contacts one fielder and another fielder is covering the base, so that the only person hindered is the runner, I'll call nothing. Self-hindrance is not illegal.

Always nice to have options when jack-assery is afoot.

[The Man in Blue]

I have seen this strategy twice in the last few weeks.  Neither time resulted in anything, but it was very obvious the runner was trying to set up an "obstruction path" in both cases.  One was rundown and the other was on a stolen base where the runner took three steps into the infield (while looking at the shortstop) before breaking to third base.

My thought at the time was the same: I can not award an obstruction that is designed.  In that case the runner wasn't hindered since they created the situation.

[Mister B]

7 hours ago, SH0102 said:

Ball has to cross the foul line (or plate) to be a pitch. If he was engaged with the rubber and drops the ball and it doesn’t cross foul line, it’s a balk. Sounds like you knew that bc you even mentioned it didn’t cross the foul line.

I remember hearing that from my LL days, but couldn't find anything in writing to support it. Fortunately, the PU is one of my instructors and just wrote to me, to tell me he was incorrect in his call. 

 

7 hours ago, SH0102 said:

You do have a rule, and again, you said it, “intentional”.  It’s alwYs tough to judge intent, but if he deviated to initiate contact, that’s intentional and he’s out.

My struggle here is, was it a cognitive intent? Does that matter?

I would almost guess that the runner turned and had no idea of where first base was, so he ran at F3, guessing that he was near the base. 

The team was not very good. I called 3 "no stop" balks and probably let 50 go, because I didn't want to delay the game. (Although, rethinking it, we may have gotten out of there earlier with a mercy win.) They had another pitcher that had nice stuff, but he quick pitched damn near every time. My partner warned him 3 times, and then gave up. This kid was trained, he tried a very slow front leg lift(straight up) and a very quick turn to 2B. While he had a very slight pause before the turn, he didn't seem to realize that, when you try to go straight up and are leaning, your foot moves toward the plate. He tried to argue that it wasn't a balk. 

[SH0102]

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

My struggle here is, was it a cognitive intent? Does that matter?

Does it matter? The runner can choose their path, but if their path is intentionally to the fielder, he is out. If he doesn’t know where the base is, that’s ridiculous, again; you’re making excuses for a team to now use this in practice. “Just tell the ump you didn’t know where you were so I ran right for the fielder!”

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

My partner warned him 3 times, and then gave up

There is no warning for a quick pitch. It’s a ball (no one on) or balk (runners on). Don’t let it go as that’s a safety issue, not just an infraction (like not calling no pause on a bad team in a blowout)

1 hour ago, Mister B said:

he tried a very slow front leg lift(straight up) and a very quick turn to 2B. While he had a very slight pause before the turn

Balk

[The Man in Blue]

Don't give up ... call it.  I'm guilty of this at times, I'll admit it, but I'm wrong when I do it.  Call it every time.   If we don't, then they just continue to knowingly do it knowing they will get away with it.

If they need to change pitchers, they need to change pitchers. 

I've probably mentioned before that we used to have a softball pitcher around here that I would call for leaping.  She went to the same pitching coach as my daughter, so I watched her do it there. I watched her do it when my daughter would play against her (and with her).  I watched her do it in travel ball and school ball.  When I had her games in travel ball, I would call her EVERY TIME.  It got to the point that her coach would just scratch her as the pitcher if they saw me walking to their field (as an umpire).  I asked other umpires to see if maybe I was seeing it wrong, most said, "Oh no, she leaps!"  When I asked why they wouldn't call her, many effectively said, "I just won't call that."  A few said, "I want to keep doing that team's games, so I'm not doing it."

Why did NONE of her coaches bother to correct her?  Because the vast majority of the time she wouldn't get called for it.  There is no reason to fix it if there is no penalty for the illegal action.

[Velho]

2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

There is no reason to fix it if there is no penalty for the illegal action.

 

[The Man in Blue]

Not sure what the message is @Velho ... maybe I'm just braindead on a Sunday.  😁

Ok, a reason could be because ... 

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Not sure what the message is @Velho ...

I was agreeing with you. Feel free to stop there. LOL

Valdez changing his already illegal windup only when MLB explicitly said it would now be called illegal came to mind an analogous. As you said, if the girl leaping was called as illegal, the coaches would change her motion.

In this case, as you said, people are ducking the right thing because they don't want the strife ( i.e. 'dishonest harmony over honest conflict')

[Senor Azul]

Mister B, everything SH0102 told you was correct. Unfortunately, he didn't provide any supporting evidence and you indicated in your post that you would like to see something in writing. Well, there is more than enough to satisfy that desire.

Let's start with FED rule 6-1-4:

...A pitch dropped during delivery and which crosses a foul line shall be called a ball. Otherwise, it will be called no pitch. A pitch dropped during delivery with at least one runner on base would be a balk if it does not cross a foul line.

6-2-4a ...or any dropping of the ball (even though accidental) and the ball does not cross a foul line (6-1-4);

Also see the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.32, p. 120) (the same text can be found in the MLBUM). And the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual on page 146 defines a "slipped pitch." Also see OBR rule 6.02(b) Comment.

If you don't have access to any of these you can find it in my post in the Rules forum, Pitcher drops ball. thread dated 1/22/22.

[Senor Azul]

A runner cannot choose to just plow through a fielder who is attempting a tag. From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (chapter 13, p. 108):

In such cases, a runner must prove by his actions and the way he positions himself that his intent is to reach the base safely and to stay on the base if it cannot be overrun...Actions that disregard this intent and show, rather, an intent to interfere with a fielder attempting a throw or tag include:..

Please go to my posts in the Ask the Umpire forum, First Base Collisions All Weekend thread, dated 5/18/22 to see the list of those actions. Or check out the text on page 95 of the 2021 MiLBUM.

[SleptTilNoonLOL]

On 4/16/2023 at 1:55 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I have seen this strategy twice in the last few weeks.  Neither time resulted in anything, but it was very obvious the runner was trying to set up an "obstruction path" in both cases.  One was rundown and the other was on a stolen base where the runner took three steps into the infield (while looking at the shortstop) before breaking to third base.

My thought at the time was the same: I can not award an obstruction that is designed.  In that case the runner wasn't hindered since they created the situation.

Interesting @The Man in Blue how did you see this in C position? I have wondered a few times while in C about something like that on a steal of 3rd (or even the SS intentionally tripping the runner) and how the hell I would see it to call anything when I am looking in towards the hitter and have my back to the play in 2-man

[Velho]

1 hour ago, SleptTilNoonLOL said:

Interesting @The Man in Blue how did you see this in C position? I have wondered a few times while in C about something like that on a steal of 3rd (or even the SS intentionally tripping the runner) and how the hell I would see it to call anything when I am looking in towards the hitter and have my back to the play in 2-man

Sorry, what was the question? 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, SleptTilNoonLOL said:

Interesting @The Man in Blue how did you see this in C position? I have wondered a few times while in C about something like that on a steal of 3rd (or even the SS intentionally tripping the runner) and how the hell I would see it to call anything when I am looking in towards the hitter and have my back to the play in 2-man

When you check your runner and he is 6 feet in front of or behind the baseline ...

... or you see him lining up with the fielder ... 

No, you aren't watching him the whole time, but it is pretty evident when you see it.

You bring up a good question though ... How do people know when the runner is stealing?  I'm usually listening for the defense to yell (which doesn't always mean anything) and listening for the runner's footsteps.  I watch the third baseman.

[SleptTilNoonLOL]

Once the pitcher engages the rubber I dont take my eyes off him. I work only two man, sometimes with plate umpires who have no clue about balks. So I am very hesitant to take my eyes away from F1 to "check the runner." Is this a pre-pitch habit I should be in when I have a PU I can trust? Glance back at R2 with F1 engaged to make sure nothing funny is going on? 

[Jimurray]

45 minutes ago, SleptTilNoonLOL said:

Once the pitcher engages the rubber I dont take my eyes off him. I work only two man, sometimes with plate umpires who have no clue about balks. So I am very hesitant to take my eyes away from F1 to "check the runner." Is this a pre-pitch habit I should be in when I have a PU I can trust? Glance back at R2 with F1 engaged to make sure nothing funny is going on? 

No, I don't see the need to check any runner once F1 is engaged. F1 will take you where you need to go.

[BigBlue4u]

On 4/16/2023 at 1:25 PM, The Man in Blue said:

Don't give up ... call it.  I'm guilty of this at times, I'll admit it, but I'm wrong when I do it.  Call it every time.   If we don't, then they just continue to knowingly do it knowing they will get away with it.

Exactly.  To quote a well-seasoned umpire, "If you permit it, you promote it."