A Balk of Lightning - Umpire's Thunder Jump Scare Call

[Lindsay]

A surprise lightning strike during Norfolk Tides pitcher Roansy Contreras' delivery resulted in a thunder-scoring balk for Jacksonville as HP Umpire Derek Thomas called Contreras for illegally stopping his pitching motion. Was this the correct call or did Tides manager Tim Federowicz have an argument due to the extreme nature of the inclement weather.

With none out and a runner on third in the bottom of the 1st inning of the Tides vs Jumbo Shrimp game in Triple-A, lightning struck somewhere near Jacksonville's stadium, and the thunder just happened to clap as Contreras was beginning his delivery. Replays indicate that in the wake of the thunder, both the pitcher and batter left their respective positions (pitcher stepping off the rubber and batter exiting the box). HP Umpire Thomas ruled that Contreras balked first and waved home Jacksonville baserunner R3 Jakob Marsee to put Jacksonville on the board.

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(1) governs the start-stop balk and states, "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher, while touching their plate, makes any motion naturally associated with their pitch and fails to make such delivery." To that end, the balk call was technically correct.

However, OBR 5.12(b)(1) addresses the case of calling "Time" during inclement weather: "The umpire in chief shall call 'Time' when in their judgment weather, darkness, or similar conditions make immediate further play impossible." This rule would have empowered the umpire to call "Time" during play itself, if the loud thunder clap were to have been deemed a condition making immediate further play impossible.

Finally, OBR 5.04(b)(2) discusses what happens when both a pitcher and batter violate a rule, such as both leaving positions during delivery: "Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from 'scratch.'" Under this rule, the play could have been nullified and ruled no-pitch, effectively baseball's version of a do-over.

It should also be noted that in college, NCAA Rule 4-2-b, the lightning rule, addresses what to do in a lightning situation: "In the case of lightning, the game administrator and umpire-in-chief shall follow lightning guidelines..." Under these guidelines, games must come to an immediate halt upon lightning striking within a certain distance of the stadium and the suspended games may not be resumed until at least 30 minutes have elapsed since the last lightning strike within the prescribed radius. High school is similar.

But professional baseball has no such rule, meaning that the entirety of lightning or thunder-related pauses falls into the umpire's hands of judgment.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Thunder crash disrupts pitcher's delivery in MiLB, ruled a balk

View the full article

[jimurrayalterego]

35 minutes ago, Lindsay said:

A surprise lightning strike during Norfolk Tides pitcher Roansy Contreras' delivery resulted in a thunder-scoring balk for Jacksonville as HP Umpire Derek Thomas called Contreras for illegally stopping his pitching motion. Was this the correct call or did Tides manager Tim Federowicz have an argument due to the extreme nature of the inclement weather.

 

With none out and a runner on third in the bottom of the 1st inning of the Tides vs Jumbo Shrimp game in Triple-A, lightning struck somewhere near Jacksonville's stadium, and the thunder just happened to clap as Contreras was beginning his delivery. Replays indicate that in the wake of the thunder, both the pitcher and batter left their respective positions (pitcher stepping off the rubber and batter exiting the box). HP Umpire Thomas ruled that Contreras balked first and waved home Jacksonville baserunner R3 Jakob Marsee to put Jacksonville on the board.

 

Official Baseball Rule 6.01(a)(1) governs the start-stop balk and states, "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher, while touching their plate, makes any motion naturally associated with their pitch and fails to make such delivery." To that end, the balk call was technically correct.

 

However, OBR 5.12(b)(1) addresses the case of calling "Time" during inclement weather: "The umpire in chief shall call 'Time' when in their judgment weather, darkness, or similar conditions make immediate further play impossible." This rule would have empowered the umpire to call "Time" during play itself, if the loud thunder clap were to have been deemed a condition making immediate further play impossible.

 

Finally, OBR 5.04(b)(2) discusses what happens when both a pitcher and batter violate a rule, such as both leaving positions during delivery: "Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from 'scratch.'" Under this rule, the play could have been nullified and ruled no-pitch, effectively baseball's version of a do-over.

 

It should also be noted that in college, NCAA Rule 4-2-b, the lightning rule, addresses what to do in a lightning situation: "In the case of lightning, the game administrator and umpire-in-chief shall follow lightning guidelines..." Under these guidelines, games must come to an immediate halt upon lightning striking within a certain distance of the stadium and the suspended games may not be resumed until at least 30 minutes have elapsed since the last lightning strike within the prescribed radius. High school is similar.

 

But professional baseball has no such rule, meaning that the entirety of lightning or thunder-related pauses falls into the umpire's hands of judgment.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Thunder crash disrupts pitcher's delivery in MiLB, ruled a balk

 

View the full article

 

In 2013 an MLB umpire balked a pitcher for stopping delivery when the batter raised a hand or said time, can't remember which. The rule in the book at that time only protected the pitcher if the batter stepped out although most of us used common sense and would not balk any action by the batter that caused the pitcher to stop. That MLB umpire was literally correct however. The next year MLB changed the wording from "stepped out" to "inadvertently caused". I think we could ascribe the "balk" to the batter's flinch.

from 5.02(b)(2) Comment:

"If after the pitcher starts his windup or comes to a “set position” with a runner on, he does not go through with his pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery, it shall not be called a balk. Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from “scratch.”"

[grayhawk]

I'm shocked they just continued playing after a strike that close.

[stevis]

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I'm shocked they just continued playing after a strike that close.

I know in any of my games, it wouldn't be a balk, it would be Time/Delay/Players to Cars

[Velho]

 

[834k3r]

I think the MLB crew got it right. The MiLB PU was...strict in his adjudication. That's a rough balk. How much of that call was him calling it to appease his evaluators?

[beerguy55]

20 hours ago, 834k3r said:

I think the MLB crew got it right. The MiLB PU was...strict in his adjudication. That's a rough balk. How much of that call was him calling it to appease his evaluators?

This would really suck in the bottom of the 9th in the World Series.

I would hope any pro ump has the authority to declare that play is stopped "immediately" after a lightning strike, meaning anything happening AFTER the lightning (like a balk) doesn't exist.

This ump will have a successful career as a bureaucrat.

 

[Velho]

hmmmm... maybe I should have balked F1 last month for failing to deliver the pitch when the lights went out as the ball was in flight 40 feet away from home plate. 🙄

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

hmmmm... maybe I should have balked F1 last month for failing to deliver the pitch when the lights went out as the ball was in flight 40 feet away from home plate. 🙄

That happened once in a game where I was on the plate. The lights went out right as F1 delivered. I got the hell out of there! It actually hit F2's mitt, but he didn't catch it.

[BigBlue4u]

These types of situations are EXACTLY what separates the very best umpires from everyone else.  Common sense, fair play and the spirit and intent of the rule.  

[Kevin_K]

This may be a great example of using the rule book to create a problem rather than using it to solve a problem.

[MadMax]

There’s precedent, in the Majors no less, to call the rational, “common sense & fair play” judgement. 

Just because a tree falls over doesn’t mean we have to seek out a guy with an axe. 

[BigBlue4u]

On 7/10/2025 at 11:46 AM, 834k3r said:

How much of that call was him calling it to appease his evaluators?

If an umpire is calling a game to appease his evaluators, he is in the wrong business.  😞

 

[SeeingEyeDog]

33 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

If an umpire is calling a game to appease his evaluators, he is in the wrong business.  😞

 

And if an evaluator is evaluating umpires on the basis of being appeased? THEY...are in the wrong business, too.

~Dawg

[834k3r]

On 7/12/2025 at 10:57 AM, BigBlue4u said:

If an umpire is calling a game to appease his evaluators, he is in the wrong business.  😞

 

Maybe appeased is the wrong word--maybe satisfy? Point is the PU knew he's always watched for potential call up. Did that factor in to him calling a balk?

[Velho]

43 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Maybe appeased is the wrong word

Everyday we all decide how much of our soul we're going to sell.

[SeeingEyeDog]

38 minutes ago, Velho said:

Everyday we all decide how much of our soul we're going to sell.

(raises hairy fist...) THIS SOUL'S NOT FOR SALE!

Also me: (sells small bits of his soul-dom in back alleys that no one likes to talk about always at above market prices)

~Dawg

[JSam21]

On 7/12/2025 at 12:22 PM, MadMax said:

There’s precedent, in the Majors no less, to call the rational, “common sense & fair play” judgement. 

Just because a tree falls over doesn’t mean we have to seek out a guy with an axe. 

Is this an apples to apples comparison though? Ball leaves his hand, no runners on, does not cross the line... no pitch per OBR 6.02(b) comment. With runners on it would be a balk...

I'm fully in the camp of calling the situation in the OP a balk. We have a pitch that has started and then failed to be delivered with runners on base... We don't really have a choice to not call it a balk and be supported with the rules. Sure, you can not call it a balk and reset everyone and maybe not have any issues... but what if the offensive team decides to file a protest? What rule supports our decision to not enforce the balk? "Common sense and fair play" don't factor into those situations, the rules as written do.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, JSam21 said:

Is this an apples to apples comparison though? Ball leaves his hand, no runners on, does not cross the line... no pitch per OBR 6.02(b) comment. With runners on it would be a balk...

I'm fully in the camp of calling the situation in the OP a balk. We have a pitch that has started and then failed to be delivered with runners on base... We don't really have a choice to not call it a balk and be supported with the rules. Sure, you can not call it a balk and reset everyone and maybe not have any issues... but what if the offensive team decides to file a protest? What rule supports our decision to not enforce the balk? "Common sense and fair play" don't factor into those situations, the rules as written do.

 

The rule comment supports no balk. The batter's flinch inadvertently caused the pitcher to stop. I think he also started to drop his bat from the ready position.

[JSam21]

3 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The rule comment supports no balk. The batter's flinch inadvertently caused the pitcher to stop. I think he also started to drop his bat from the ready position.

The pitch has already started. The batter remained in the box until the pitcher stopped their motion. Which specific rule comment are you speaking of?

 

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

The pitch has already started. The batter remained in the box until the pitcher stopped their motion. Which specific rule comment are you speaking of?

 

5.02(b)(2)

From a previous post:

"In 2013 an MLB umpire balked a pitcher for stopping delivery when the batter raised a hand or said time, can't remember which. The rule in the book at that time only protected the pitcher if the batter stepped out although most of us used common sense and would not balk any action by the batter that caused the pitcher to stop. That MLB umpire was literally correct however. The next year MLB changed the wording from "stepped out" to "inadvertently caused". I think we could ascribe the "balk" to the batter's flinch.

from 5.02(b)(2) Comment:

"If after the pitcher starts his windup or comes to a “set position” with a runner on, he does not go through with his pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery, it shall not be called a balk. Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from “scratch.”"

[JSam21]

27 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

5.02(b)(2)

From a previous post:

"In 2013 an MLB umpire balked a pitcher for stopping delivery when the batter raised a hand or said time, can't remember which. The rule in the book at that time only protected the pitcher if the batter stepped out although most of us used common sense and would not balk any action by the batter that caused the pitcher to stop. That MLB umpire was literally correct however. The next year MLB changed the wording from "stepped out" to "inadvertently caused". I think we could ascribe the "balk" to the batter's flinch.

from 5.02(b)(2) Comment:

"If after the pitcher starts his windup or comes to a “set position” with a runner on, he does not go through with his pitch because the batter has inadvertently caused the pitcher to interrupt his delivery, it shall not be called a balk. Both the pitcher and batter have violated a rule and the umpire shall call time and both the batter and pitcher start over from “scratch.”"

So... was it the batter's actions or the thunder that caused the pitcher to stop? The batter remains ready to hit and within the box until the pitcher has already aborted the delivery. 

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, 834k3r said:

Maybe appeased is the wrong word--maybe satisfy? Point is the PU knew he's always watched for potential call up. Did that factor in to him calling a balk?

Good point.  However, I think the main point is that evaluators and umpires should be pretty much on the same page when it comes to various interpretations. This tho

 

1 minute ago, JSam21 said:

So... was it the batter's actions or the thunder that caused the pitcher to stop? The batter remains ready to hit and within the box until the pitcher has already aborted the delivery. 

I'll take the thunder every time!

[JSam21]

7 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

Good point.  However, I think the main point is that evaluators and umpires should be pretty much on the same page when it comes to various interpretations. This tho

 

I'll take the thunder every time!

So... its a balk?

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

So... was it the batter's actions or the thunder that caused the pitcher to stop? The batter remains ready to hit and within the box until the pitcher has already aborted the delivery. 

After the 2013 balk MLB changed to any action by the batter, even in the box, could be cause for F1 to stop and not be balked. Did the thunder cause F1 to stop? Did the batter flinch? Was he ready to hit if he was lowering the bat? If I call time in that sit and someone wants to protest that it was a balk I have justification to not call a balk even if my initial judgement was to use common sense and kill it because of thunder.