Mixture of NFHS and OBR balk rules caused confusion

[Detroit Pat]

18U tourney last weekend using NFHS rules with two balk exceptions "No third to first move" and "Balks are live and will be a delayed dead ball" (so, sort of MLB balk rules but not explicitly saying MLB balk rules in effect)

Runners at first and third, no outs, RHP
F1 kicks up and steps to 3B and begins to throw (pivot foot is now disengaged)
R1 takes off to 2B on the kick
F1 stops his throw to 3B and turns and throws to 2B ahead of R1 who is thrown out

In MLB this is a balk all day
In NFHS my interpretation is that this would be legal as a feint to 3B is allowed after the pivot foot is disengaged and subsequently throwing ahead of an advancing runner at 2B would be legal (I could certainly be wrong here)

What would you have called?

[Detroit Pat]

4 minutes ago, BrainFreeze said:

I see this a lot in these threads and I honestly don't get it. 

Do any of you work games where a coach goes to get the TD to appeal a ruling you've made?  Unless there's some tournament rule that says "teams can go get the TD if they don't like the umpire's ruling", when the TD comes up to my field I'm telling him ( or her ) to

• piss off; and
• grab their gear because they're the new umpire; and
• piss off

In this tournament protests/clarifications aren't allowed past the umpires on the field (the tourney folks including the Director are umpires and VERY supportive of us).

That's what makes it a little more surprising TBH - at least the written rules part. I'm 100% sure that whatever we decided on the field they'd support.

I'm going to chat with him later this week - I'm pretty sure they'll be receptive to adapting it to be much more clear. "OBR balk rules are in effect" or something like that.

[ErichKeane]

6 minutes ago, BrainFreeze said:

It is however your responsibility to get the call right, and your obstinance does you no good when you have a feint to 3d in a game situation and the offensive HC loses his mind because you tell him that you *know* it's a balk but you're not calling it because the TD wrote a crappy rule. 

Earlier in the thread you said you didn't want to pick a particular booger -- so *this* is the booger you'd rather pick?

ONE bugger is defensible in black and white based on the rules for the tournament.  You can say, "But OBR!" all you want, but the response is going to be, "yes, but this is NFHS rules!". 

 

5 minutes ago, BrainFreeze said:

I see this a lot in these threads and I honestly don't get it. 

Do any of you work games where a coach goes to get the TD to appeal a ruling you've made?  Unless there's some tournament rule that says "teams can go get the TD if they don't like the umpire's ruling", when the TD comes up to my field I'm telling him ( or her ) to

• piss off; and
• grab their gear because they're the new umpire; and
• piss off

I've yet to be in a tourney setting where there ISN'T a protest process.  And I've yet to be in one where coaches don't complain to the TD after the game anyway.  I don't want to be the umpire that 'makes up rules' for the tourney, I'd rather be the one that stuck to the rules too much.

 

[RBIbaseball]

24 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

The outcome of that is: You have a TD who is writing the above rule set.  When a coach complains about it, the TD is not going to back you up here, so you're going to look like a fool enforcing a made-up rule in a MSU tournament.   So I'd either enforce the rule exactly-as-written (3rd to 1st is illegal because 3rd to 1st is illegal, not the feint), or track the TD down in advance and MAKE him clarify the rules.

If I look like a fool to a bunch of fools, who cares.

The lack of communication and the level of umpire quality in the current system I'm doing weekend ball in is dismal.

 

The last thing I'm worried about is my reputation in the eyes of this circus ring.

[The Man in Blue]

29 minutes ago, BrainFreeze said:

I see this a lot in these threads and I honestly don't get it. 

Do any of you work games where a coach goes to get the TD to appeal a ruling you've made?  Unless there's some tournament rule that says "teams can go get the TD if they don't like the umpire's ruling", when the TD comes up to my field I'm telling him ( or her ) to

• piss off; and
• grab their gear because they're the new umpire; and
• piss off

 

Normally, I would answer no.  Then this weekend happened.

The entire coaching staff of a team and three parents went to the TD on a correct IFF call. (They didn't hear or see my partner making the call ... so that means IFF doesn't exist.  Right?)

Of course, the entire coaching staff was free to do that because we had ejected all of them* and had to stand around and wait for a "reserve coaching squad" to be assembled.  (One of the tournament people asked me if the coaches had to be listed on the roster.  I said, "It's your tournament, how would I know that?")

 

Thankfully the TD stared at them as if they were an insane mob ... wait, they were.

*AC1 reached the allotment of f-bombs for a PG-13 rating, was restricted, and then ejected when he kept going.

AC2 kept screaming about how I needed to read the rulebook. After being instructed to stop, he continued and stated he had one "right here and you need to read it."    (I really wanted to simply tell him to find the section, read it, then we could discuss it.  I wasn't going to throw fuel on the fire though, even if I was right.)

HC earned his ticket the THIRD time he came back out of the dugout to argue the same incorrect points.

[The Man in Blue]

15 minutes ago, Detroit Pat said:

In this tournament protests/clarifications aren't allowed past the umpires on the field (the tourney folks including the Director are umpires and VERY supportive of us).

That's what makes it a little more surprising TBH - at least the written rules part. I'm 100% sure that whatever we decided on the field they'd support.

I'm going to chat with him later this week - I'm pretty sure they'll be receptive to adapting it to be much more clear. "OBR balk rules are in effect" or something like that.

 

I wouldn't even be that vague.  If you are going to throw out a statement like that, you better make sure EVERYBODY knows what that means.  If we are using NFHS base, we have two pitching stances: stretch and NOT stretch (I mean, windup).  If we are using OBR, then we have potential for declarations.  Will anybody have any idea what that is when we (don't) call it?

[The Man in Blue]

40 minutes ago, BrainFreeze said:

It is however your responsibility to get the call right, and your obstinance does you no good when you have a feint to 3d in a game situation and the offensive HC loses his mind because you tell him that you *know* it's a balk but you're not calling it because the TD wrote a crappy rule. 

Earlier in the thread you said you didn't want to pick a particular booger -- so *this* is the booger you'd rather pick?

 

Getting the call right is not the same as making the popular decision or taking the easy way out.

There is a far cry between saying "I know the rule but I'm not enforcing it" and one of my favorite lines to help diffuse situations: "Coach, you would be right under XYZ ruleset, but they have us using ABC.  This is one of those differences between the two."  IMO, Erich is going the latter route which is correct.

[Thunderheads]

56 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

Sorry Thunder.  I'm with Erich.  The rule clearly says "3rd to 1st move is NOT LEGAL."  It doesn't mention a feint at all.  YOU are ASSUMING it means feint.  You have no idea what the rule writer was thinking or not thinking at the time.  Saying that rule means 'all feints to first and third are illegal' is making sh!t up.  I, like Erich would have asked for clarification before stepping on the field or called what happened not a balk.  After all, the tournament rule says absolutely NOTHING about a feint to 3rd and throw to 2nd.

It's not making SH*# up, ...it's literally the same tihng.   Let's put this another way ..... I understand where you guys are coming from, but come on ....

So, playing under the rules from the OP ....  A 3rd to 1st move is NOT allowed, ok fine.  But you're saying you're going to allow a feint to 3rd only (which is the same thing by the way with just additional movement)?

[Detroit Pat]

4 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

It's not making SH*# up, ...it's literally the same tihng.   Let's put this another way ..... I understand where you guys are coming from, but come on ....

So, playing under the rules from the OP ....  A 3rd to 1st move is NOT allowed, ok fine.  But you're saying you're going to allow a feint to 3rd only (which is the same thing by the way with just additional movement)?

Yes, because they specified NFHS rules with exceptions, and a feint to third is legal in Fed ball. 

If they wanted to disallow all "fakes" to third, then they should have put that in the rules. 

[Thunderheads]

2 minutes ago, Detroit Pat said:

Yes, because they specified NFHS rules with exceptions, and a feint to third is legal in Fed ball. 

If they wanted to disallow all "fakes" to third, then they should have put that in the rules. 

YES.  And, my point is, and has always been ....  they screwed up writing it and they weren't clear.  But logic tells us you can't have one without the other based on ALL OF OUR RULES KNOWLEDGE  

[agdz59]

1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

YES.  And, my point is, and has always been ....  they screwed up writing it and they weren't clear.  But logic tells us you can't have one without the other based on ALL OF OUR RULES KNOWLEDGE  

No - 'logic' in this case is you getting inside the rule writer's head and assuming you know what he meant.  On this forum, that is decried as MSU.  Don't do that.  That's what I've been told many, many times when I try to apply what I think is a basic principle to rules that are vague.

 

Case in point, a runner on third and the pitcher takes his stance without the ball and you say 'Play!'.  When the 3B tags out the runner taking his lead, I think 'deception' and I think pitcher within 5 feet of the pitcher's plate / taking his stance on the mound without the ball.  I think 'balk'.  The poobahs here, however, shout me down. "Don't make sh!t up! You make us all look bad!!"

This local rule is spelled out clearer than the above.  The 3rd to first move is illegal, all other balks are NFHS.  NFHS allows feints to third.  The feint was to third and the throw to 2nd.  Legal.  Don't make sh!t up.

 

And that is why I haven't umpired for awhile.  I can't keep track of the MSU I must avoid and MSU I have to do to get the cush assignments.  Whatevs y'all, whatevs.

[Thunderheads]

13 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

No - 'logic' in this case is you getting inside the rule writer's head and assuming you know what he meant.  On this forum, that is decried as MSU.  Don't do that.  That's what I've been told many, many times when I try to apply what I think is a basic principle to rules that are vague.

I've never MSU ... ever ....

 

14 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

Case in point, a runner on third and the pitcher takes his stance without the ball and you say 'Play!'.  When the 3B tags out the runner taking his lead, I think 'deception' and I think pitcher within 5 feet of the pitcher's plate / taking his stance on the mound without the ball.  I think 'balk'.  The poobahs here, however, shout me down. "Don't make sh!t up! You make us all look bad!!"

Huh?  That never happened here, because that IS A BALK.  But, whatever

 

15 minutes ago, agdz59 said:

This local rule is spelled out clearer than the above.  The 3rd to first move is illegal, all other balks are NFHS.  NFHS allows feints to third.  The feint was to third and the throw to 2nd.  Legal.  Don't make sh!t up.

I know what you're saying, but ....making SH*# up, for me, is above.   If @Detroit Pat comes back with what you said above, well then, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard of.  Me thinks he'll come back with something more inline with what I said.   We shall see.    You do you Boo.  And by the way, you're not making SH*# up if you're trying to figure out what the F*#K is going on.  The TD has already made SH*# up by creating a cockamamie rule.

Just remember - How can you have 3rd to 1st be illegal, and a feint to 3rd legal when they're the same thing?  Anyhow, I've made my point, (I've sure tried) and  I'll wait until Pat gets back to us. 

[Jimurray]

18 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

 

 

Huh?  That never happened here, because that IS A BALK.  But, whatever

 

 

I think you missed that the ball was dead and the play declaration did not make it live because the pitcher did not have the ball. Thus you can't have a balk although it appears @agdz59 still doesn't agree with us poobahs.

[Thunderheads]

Just now, Jimurray said:

I think you missed that the ball was dead and the play declaration did not make it live because the pitcher did not have the ball. Thus you can't have a balk although it appears @agdz59 still doesn't agree with us poobahs.

OHHHH that one!  I remember that one .... thanks @Jimurray

[ErichKeane]

To hammer this home:

>>Just remember - How can you have 3rd to 1st be illegal, and a feint to 3rd legal when they're the same thing?  Anyhow, I've made my point, (I've sure tried) and  I'll wait until Pat gets back to us. 

Because the rule explicitly says that 3rd-to-1st is illegal, it does NOT say the feint to 3rd is illegal.  You're hung up on "how can 3rd to 1st be illegal without feint to 3rd being illegal", and the answer is: Because that is what the rule explicitly says. For OPs ruleset, it is specified as "if i fake to 3rd AND THEN go to 1st, that is illegal".  Deciding that it means "fake to 3rd is illegal" is applying a different ruleset to the one specified.

[Thunderheads]

24 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

To hammer this home:

>>Just remember - How can you have 3rd to 1st be illegal, and a feint to 3rd legal when they're the same thing?  Anyhow, I've made my point, (I've sure tried) and  I'll wait until Pat gets back to us. 

Because the rule explicitly says that 3rd-to-1st is illegal, it does NOT say the feint to 3rd is illegal.  You're hung up on "how can 3rd to 1st be illegal without feint to 3rd being illegal", and the answer is: Because that is what the rule explicitly says. For OPs ruleset, it is specified as "if i fake to 3rd AND THEN go to 1st, that is illegal".  Deciding that it means "fake to 3rd is illegal" is applying a different ruleset to the one specified.

I know, I know.  We'll see what Pat says ....

BUT, can we agree that the 3rd to 1st move is a feint to 3rd?  

[ErichKeane]

3 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I know, I know.  We'll see what Pat says ....

BUT, can we agree that the 3rd to 1st move is a feint to 3rd?  

I agree the 3rd-to-1st move is a feint to 3rd, followed by a throw to 1st.  The legality of which is severely dependent on the ruleset being applied.

I'm hopeful that Pat will discuss his concerns with his TD, who will put SOME thought into the rules and correct them.

[Detroit Pat]

5 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

I know, I know.  We'll see what Pat says ....

BUT, can we agree that the 3rd to 1st move is a feint to 3rd?  

I'm due to talk to the TD later this week when the dust has settled - we'll see what he has to say (and if they're going to change it)

[Thunderheads]

4 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I agree the 3rd-to-1st move is a feint to 3rd, followed by a throw to 1st.  The legality of which is severely dependent on the ruleset being applied.

I'm hopeful that Pat will discuss his concerns with his TD, who will put SOME thought into the rules and correct them.

Yes.  FED Legal, OBR not.   But what about some local rulesmaker that screws them both up?!? LOL  

[RBIbaseball]

5 hours ago, ErichKeane said:

 

 

40 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

To hammer this home:

>>Just remember - How can you have 3rd to 1st be illegal, and a feint to 3rd legal when they're the same thing?  Anyhow, I've made my point, (I've sure tried) and  I'll wait until Pat gets back to us. 

Because the rule explicitly says that 3rd-to-1st is illegal, it does NOT say the feint to 3rd is illegal.  You're hung up on "how can 3rd to 1st be illegal without feint to 3rd being illegal", and the answer is: Because that is what the rule explicitly says. For OPs ruleset, it is specified as "if i fake to 3rd AND THEN go to 1st, that is illegal".  Deciding that it means "fake to 3rd is illegal" is applying a different ruleset to the one specified.

Like I said for myself, I follow your logic and it does make me question how I might handle this going further. Last weekend a coach asked if 3rd to 1st was legal at the plate meeting, and I responded "feints to 3rd are illegal" , even tho it was this exact situation where only the 3rd to 1st and delayed dead ball were highlighted as the changes.

 

To play devil's advocate, if a pitcher feints to 3B then turns and feints to 1B (assuming F1 brings pivot foot off the rubber in feint to 3B), do you have a balk? I would assume No, based on your previous arguments.

Coach would say that 3rd to 1st is illegal , and it doesn't explicitly say anything about feinting or not feinting .... So in your own words, wouldn't you be adding your own context into this rule? The same as we did (albeit admittedly to a lesser degree) by filling in the intent of "no feints, period"?

 

edit: unless your rule specifies feint , then throw ... But mine didn't 

[ErichKeane]

4 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

 

Like I said for myself, I follow your logic and it does make me question how I might handle this going further. Last weekend a coach asked if 3rd to 1st was legal at the plate meeting, and I responded "feints to 3rd are illegal" , even tho it was this exact situation where only the 3rd to 1st and delayed dead ball were highlighted as the changes.

 

To play devil's advocate, if a pitcher feints to 3B then turns and feints to 1B (assuming F1 brings pivot foot off the rubber in feint to 3B), do you have a balk? I would assume No, based on your previous arguments.

Coach would say that 3rd to 1st is illegal , and it doesn't explicitly say anything about feinting or not feinting .... So in your own words, wouldn't you be adding your own context into this rule? The same as we did (albeit admittedly to a lesser degree) by filling in the intent of "no feints, period"?

 

edit: unless your rule specifies feint , then throw ... But mine didn't 

Depends on the vagueness of the rule   In this case, the "First to 3rd move is illegal" is so sufficiently vague that I'd have a hard time defining it.  There is some tea-leaf reading in your example, but to be a 'stickler', I would expect the throw to 1B would be necessary for it to be 'illegal', as in common parlance, the '3rd to 1st move' is commonly understood to be feint to 3rd, throw to 1st.  So the 'throw' would be necessary.  I'm of course reading 'tea leaves' here too, but its trying to deduce what common parlance for '3rd to 1st move' is.

IMO, in BOTH cases, the correct answer is to not umpire under vague/incomplete rules until the TD has publicly clarified the rules.  Umpires get a bad enough rap, having to enforce poorly defined and ambiguous rules only makes it worse.

[Thunderheads]

14 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

There is some tea-leaf reading in your example, but to be a 'stickler', I would expect the throw to 1B would be necessary for it to be 'illegal', as in common parlance, the '3rd to 1st move' is commonly understood to be feint to 3rd, throw to 1st.  So the 'throw' would be necessary.  I'm of course reading 'tea leaves' here too, but its trying to deduce what common parlance for '3rd to 1st move' is.

Ok, I understand this, but I disagree.  MANY TIMES, the 1st to 3rd move doesn't include a throw to 1st.  I know, 'tea-leaves' but .... I wouldn't think an actual throw is necessary, ...it's a "move"

 

15 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

IMO, in BOTH cases, the correct answer is to not umpire under vague/incomplete rules until the TD has publicly clarified the rules.  Umpires get a bad enough rap, having to enforce poorly defined and ambiguous rules only makes it worse.

THIS, ...I can TOTALLY get on board with!  

[beerguy55]

 

 

2 hours ago, ErichKeane said:

I agree the 3rd-to-1st move is a feint to 3rd, followed by a throw to 1st.  The legality of which is severely dependent on the ruleset being applied.

 

Not in my experience.  The third to first move often includes a feint to third and then a feint/pump to first....and some times just a turn and step...or a turn and look towards first...and no throw because there's no point...R1 didn't bite.  Once in a while the throw goes to second, not first.

It's the third to first move, not the third to first throw.

 

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Thunderheads said:

I know, I know.  We'll see what Pat says ....

BUT, can we agree that the 3rd to 1st move is a feint to 3rd?  

Even if he throws to 3rd according to another thread … 

Here is an interesting thought exercise on how people are arriving at their conclusion here.  I could be wrong, but hear me out and let me know …

If you have significant experience working OBR, you are likely to arrive at the balk answer.

If your experience comes primarily from NFHS, you are likely to stick with the literal reading.

 

[ErichKeane]

16 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Even if he throws to 3rd according to another thread … 

Here is an interesting thought exercise on how people are arriving at their conclusion here.  I could be wrong, but hear me out and let me know …

If you have significant experience working OBR, you are likely to arrive at the balk answer.

If your experience comes primarily from NFHS, you are likely to stick with the literal reading.

 

By games, I do primarily OBR.  BUT my day job is 'teach computers to be absolute jerks about rules enforcement' (C++ Compiler engineer), so I tend to be a 'letter of the law above all else' type anyway.

[RBIbaseball]

2 hours ago, ErichKeane said:

I would expect the throw to 1B would be necessary for it to be 'illegal', as in common parlance, the '3rd to 1st move' is commonly understood to be feint to 3rd, throw to 1st.  So the 'throw' would be necessary.

I don't disagree . But that's basically where we differ. And I would argue you are indeed doing the same thing you accusing us of, but just to a lesser degree

 

I would have said that it is commonly understood is that a "3rd to 1st move" being illegal means they are taking the OBR "feinting to 3rd being illegal" but just stating it in the most commonly seen example for coaches ... But it's obviously not commonly understood, as you argue it should be read literally and not expounded upon

 

Anyways , I digress ... We're not so far off here as it may appear