Balk or Ball? When An Umpire Should Ignore a Balk

[Lindsay]

When is a balk not a balk? Umpires correctly called A's pitcher Jeffrey Springs for a no-stop balk during a 3-2 pitch to Mariners batter Julio Rodríguez, but awarding baserunner R1 Ben Williamson second base was only half of the equation. Instead of Rodríguez awarded first base on ball four (the pitch was low), the crew returned the batter to the plate, where he proceeded to strike out swinging on the next pitch.

We first note Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(13) pertaining to balks, which states, "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop."

Because pitcher Springs failed to come to a complete stop while in Set Position, as in OBR 5.07(a)(2), 1B Umpire John Tumpane was correct to call out "balk" when the infraction occurred.

OBR 6.02(a) continues, specifying the penalty for a balk violation: "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."

Although the ball ultimately becomes dead on a balk, if the pitcher pitches, that pitch may still count, as long as it results in the batter-runner reaching first base and all other runners advancing at least one base.

In this situation, the pitch missed low for ball four, which meant that runner R1 Williamson would have been forced to advance to second base, by virtue of batter Rodríguez becoming a runner on the base-on-balls.

But instead of applying the "play proceeds without reference to the balk" portion of the penalty due to both batter and runner advancing at least one base, the umpires enforced the base award for the runner and returned the batter to home plate, where he proceeded to strike out instead of taking his base.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Balk instead of ball four leads to batter striking out on the next pitch

View the full article

[jimurrayalterego]

13 hours ago, Lindsay said:

When is a balk not a balk? Umpires correctly called A's pitcher Jeffrey Springs for a no-stop balk during a 3-2 pitch to Mariners batter Julio Rodríguez, but awarding baserunner R1 Ben Williamson second base was only half of the equation. Instead of Rodríguez awarded first base on ball four (the pitch was low), the crew returned the batter to the plate, where he proceeded to strike out swinging on the next pitch.

 

We first note Official Baseball Rule 6.02(a)(13) pertaining to balks, which states, "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop."

 

Because pitcher Springs failed to come to a complete stop while in Set Position, as in OBR 5.07(a)(2), 1B Umpire John Tumpane was correct to call out "balk" when the infraction occurred.

 

OBR 6.02(a) continues, specifying the penalty for a balk violation: "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."

 

Although the ball ultimately becomes dead on a balk, if the pitcher pitches, that pitch may still count, as long as it results in the batter-runner reaching first base and all other runners advancing at least one base.

 

In this situation, the pitch missed low for ball four, which meant that runner R1 Williamson would have been forced to advance to second base, by virtue of batter Rodríguez becoming a runner on the base-on-balls.

 

But instead of applying the "play proceeds without reference to the balk" portion of the penalty due to both batter and runner advancing at least one base, the umpires enforced the base award for the runner and returned the batter to home plate, where he proceeded to strike out instead of taking his base.

Video as follows:
Alternate Link: Balk instead of ball four leads to batter striking out on the next pitch

View the full article

Cue in the advocates of NFHS OBR live ball balks. 

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Cue in the advocates of NFHS OBR live ball balks. 

Cue the "how do 4 MLB umpires mess this up?" crowd...

[beerguy55]

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Cue the "how do 4 MLB umpires mess this up?" crowd...

I'll go one further. The batter?  The manager?  ANYONE on the Mariners saying, "isn't that ball four?"

 

I suppose PU can (sort of) save face by saying he had it as a strike, but gave no mechanic due to the balk call...

[BigBlue4u]

20 hours ago, Lindsay said:

But instead of applying the "play proceeds without reference to the balk" portion of the penalty due to both batter and runner advancing at least one base, the umpires enforced the base award for the runner and returned the batter to home plate, where he proceeded to strike out instead of taking his base.

Lindsay,

Good thoughts.  However, your entire discussion points to the exact reason the NFHS wants an immediate dead ball on a balk.

[jimurrayalterego]

4 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

I'll go one further. The batter?  The manager?  ANYONE on the Mariners saying, "isn't that ball four?"

 

I suppose PU can (sort of) save face by saying he had it as a strike, but gave no mechanic due to the balk call...

They wouldn’t know the nuance of the balk rule. Some years back I think it was Jerry Layne who called a balk and a wild pitch was thrown. If I remember right while he called time the catcher was in no rush to retrieve the pitch and the runner showed no intention of advancing. These plays that involve the esoteric side of the rule are rare and might often involve a screwup. MiLB just had one also. 

[grayhawk]

I'm going to chalk it up to the dog days of summer and 4 guys losing focus. 

[Velho]

For those interested in a deeper dive (including MLBUM cites), here is a thread from almost exactly 1 year ago

 

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I'm going to chalk it up to the dog days of summer and 4 guys losing focus. 

You don't have to lose focus. You and me both jumped to answer the Refquest OP where a balk was called, pitch was thrown and F2's throw went into the outfield and R1 ended up at 3B. Obvious call as time should have been called when the pitch was caught and the balk enforced. R1 back to 2B. A sharp ump named Greta mentioned that the MLB umpires who posited the sit did not give the count which makes a big difference on enforcement. If ball four our answers were wrong. MLB umps gave a sit where they didn't realize the count mattered and we didn't even ask for the count but enforced the balk. But the take away is NFHS should stay with dead ball balks or do some version of coach choice. The other take away for those that advocate for live ball balks in their OBR leagues is "you don't know what you don't know". Peruse the Refquest thread to see how some college umpires don't know the correct enforcement of balks. And find the MiLB screwup on Twitter. Do these guys get any rules training from TUS?

[Velho]

43 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

And find the MiLB screwup on Twitter

R1, F3 off the bag, F1 pickoffs with a throw to 1B that goes wild (since F3 wasn't there). R1 advanced to 3B. R1 then placed on 2B.

(I think I got all that right).

 

[grayhawk]

13 hours ago, Velho said:

R1, F3 off the bag, F1 pickoffs with a throw to 1B that goes wild (since F3 wasn't there). R1 advanced to 3B. R1 then placed on 2B.

(I think I got all that right).

 

That's the one.