Dead ball hidden ball balk?

[jimurrayalterego]

Sat. 8/5 BOS SD. I asked about this on Refmasters but probably won't get feedback there. The Youtube clip does not have enough camera coverage to tell what exactly happened and even my MLBTV doesn't show enough to decide but it appears that they balked a hidden ball trick when F1 engaged. But from the MLBTV I see U3 and U1 calling time after the rundown. We don't know how the ball got back to Machado but when F1 takes the rubber Buckner does not point it live either because he knows there is no ball or because he doesn't point most of the time. 

My screengrabs and Youtube link: Machado’s hidden ball trick costs the Padres a run - explained

 

 

[johnnyg08]

Thanks for the reminder. I had this sitting in my drafts. There was a rundown that set this attempt up. But they screwed it up. 

 

 

[johnnyg08]

6 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

But from the MLBTV I see U3 and U1 calling time after the rundown

Very interesting! Nice observation! This might have been a crew error! 

[Velho]

23 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

30 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

But from the MLBTV I see U3 and U1 calling time after the rundown

Very interesting! Nice observation! This might have been a crew error! 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDWgPLxFCg

 

[Velho]

Machado also tagged R3 while R3 was touching 3B 🙄

 

[Velho]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDDWgPLxFCg

 

34 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

My screengrabs and Youtube link: Machado’s hidden ball trick costs the Padres a run - explained

HA! I just referenced you to you 🤣

(I had already seen the play so didn't watch your linked video but then remembered someone had done a nice summary so went back to that... which was you)

[JSam21]

I responded on RM just to get you some traction. 

[The Man in Blue]

Pretty cut and dry …

Anybody want to talk about the OOB call?  (When was the tag attempt?)

[Velho]

4 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Anybody want to talk about the OOB call?  (When was the tag attempt?)

Or was it Abandonment?

Has echoes of POE about overrunning a base to beat a force.

[grayhawk]

Time was definitely called, which would be normal in MLB following a batted ball once play has relaxed. They switch to a new ball almost any time the ball has touched something other than the pitcher's and catcher's hands and gloves.

[mw94]

On 8/12/2025 at 4:19 PM, grayhawk said:

Time was definitely called, which would be normal in MLB following a batted ball once play has relaxed. They switch to a new ball almost any time the ball has touched something other than the pitcher's and catcher's hands and gloves.

which I think is ridiculous.  It also has caused trickle down effect to lower levels expecting time after after ball in play

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, mw94 said:

which I think is ridiculous.  It also has caused trickle down effect to lower levels expecting time after after ball in play

just say no

[grayhawk]

49 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

just say no

"You don't need time to throw the ball back to the pitcher."

[MadMax]

On 8/12/2025 at 7:19 PM, grayhawk said:

Time was definitely called, which would be normal in MLB following a batted ball once play has relaxed.

Okay, sure. It was called, as "usual" (for MLB). 

On 8/12/2025 at 7:19 PM, grayhawk said:

They switch to a new ball almost any time the ball has touched something other than the pitcher's and catcher's hands and gloves.

But this time, they didn't. No ball-to-be-played enters the game without going through the PU's ball bags and hands (yeah, yeah... I had to qualify this because of the occasional "free baseball at the ballpark giveaway night!", or the youngster mimicking the adults and "throwing it back"). So if they didn't change out the baseball, then Peralta (F1) never had a/the baseball... certainly, PU Bucknor never issued him (a new) one. 

But here's the wrinkle... and again, I've mentioned it before several times here on U-E, it's unique to Major League Baseball. As soon as F1 engages the rubber, the ball (that he's supposed to have) is made Live regardless of PU signaling the ball Live or speaking it ("Play") Live. The action clock begins, and the Official Timekeeper (a League employee) is cued off such an act as the pitcher (re)engaging the rubber. 

So the ball is supposed to be Live upon Peralta engaging the rubber... but he doesn't have a/the ball. Thus, a call of Balk is appropriate. 

By contrast, in other leagues and rule codes (amateur, specifically), a/the ball is only made Live when the PU signals/says it Live. We ran into this exact problem in a league this summer – after a Foul ball, a new ball was thrown to F1, who received it within the dirt circle of the mound. The clock operator was mistaken, and started the clock. R2 was still returning back to the vicinity of 2B, and the F1 threw to F6, who "tagged R2 Out". The ball was never put back in play – signaled or spoken Live – by the PU. Caused a bit of a ruckus. Because coaches on both sides were wondering:

1. Why wasn't he (R2) Out?
2. If he's not Out, then why wasn't that a Balk?

"But the clock started!" 

We aren't Major League Baseball. 

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

Okay, sure. It was called, as "usual" (for MLB). 

But this time, they didn't. No ball-to-be-played enters the game without going through the PU's ball bags and hands (yeah, yeah... I had to qualify this because of the occasional "free baseball at the ballpark giveaway night!", or the youngster mimicking the adults and "throwing it back"). So if they didn't change out the baseball, then Peralta (F1) never had a/the baseball... certainly, PU Bucknor never issued him (a new) one. 

But here's the wrinkle... and again, I've mentioned it before several times here on U-E, it's unique to Major League Baseball. As soon as F1 engages the rubber, the ball (that he's supposed to have) is made Live regardless of PU signaling the ball Live or speaking it ("Play") Live. The action clock begins, and the Official Timekeeper (a League employee) is cued off such an act as the pitcher (re)engaging the rubber. 

So the ball is supposed to be Live upon Peralta engaging the rubber... but he doesn't have a/the ball. Thus, a call of Balk is appropriate. 

By contrast, in other leagues and rule codes (amateur, specifically), a/the ball is only made Live when the PU signals/says it Live. We ran into this exact problem in a league this summer – after a Foul ball, a new ball was thrown to F1, who received it within the dirt circle of the mound. The clock operator was mistaken, and started the clock. R2 was still returning back to the vicinity of 2B, and the F1 threw to F6, who "tagged R2 Out". The ball was never put back in play – signaled or spoken Live – by the PU. Caused a bit of a ruckus. Because coaches on both sides were wondering:

1. Why wasn't he (R2) Out?
2. If he's not Out, then why wasn't that a Balk?

"But the clock started!" 

We aren't Major League Baseball. 

The pitch clock is run by the Field Timing Coordinator and I can't find any reference to starting the clock when the pitcher takes the rubber. I only see them starting when the pitcher gets the ball, allowing for certain delays. 

When Jaska-Roder was authoritative they did specify the ball being live as soon as the pitcher was on the rubber with it and we saw many MLB umps never pointing. Things changed and for a while we saw more umps putting it in play. I haven't watched any clips recently that would show a point. Are you saying they went back to the J-R interp and no one points any more which would make sense with the pitch clock rule?

I don't think you can rationalize a live ball with the pitcher on the rubber without it but no one asked for a rule check to NY so we won't know. And my post on Refmasters was a hot potato that Brennan and Malachi did not touch. @JSam21 did bring up the possibility that what we thought were "time" signals were crew signals instead. 

[JSam21]

2 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

The pitch clock is run by the Field Timing Coordinator and I can't find any reference to starting the clock when the pitcher takes the rubber. I only see them starting when the pitcher gets the ball, allowing for certain delays. 

When Jaska-Roder was authoritative they did specify the ball being live as soon as the pitcher was on the rubber with it and we saw many MLB umps never pointing. Things changed and for a while we saw more umps putting it in play. I haven't watched any clips recently that would show a point. Are you saying they went back to the J-R interp and no one points any more which would make sense with the pitch clock rule?

I don't think you can rationalize a live ball with the pitcher on the rubber without it but no one asked for a rule check to NY so we won't know. And my post on Refmasters was a hot potato that Brennan and Malachi did not touch. @JSam21 did bring up the possibility that what we thought were "time" signals were crew signals instead. 

In the end, it could just be that they messed up. Just like the crew early in the college season where they got an out. 

[grayhawk]

3 hours ago, JSam21 said:

In the end, it could just be that they messed up. Just like the crew early in the college season where they got an out. 

I believe that's what happened. I asked an MLB umpire about this play and he said the same rule applies here as it would on an amateur field. The ball needs to be alive and in play. But he believes MLB wanted to clarify the ruling, so he's been waiting to hear that. The clock starting doesn’t necessarily mean that the ball is alive and in play.

[Velho]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The ball needs to be alive and in play. But he believes MLB wanted to clarify the ruling, so he's been waiting to hear that. The clock starting doesn’t necessarily mean that the ball is alive and in play.

I assume (hope) that will include when, without the explicit point, the ball is back in play.

[jimurrayalterego]

42 minutes ago, Velho said:

I assume (hope) that will include when, without the explicit point, the ball is back in play.

It actually was when the pitcher took the rubber with the ball for some time in the 80s/90s. I noticed some change, circa 2010-2015, with some MLB umps being consistent about pointing (never a verbal) while some still relied on the J-R interp and did not point. I haven't paid much attention lately but in my amateur status when I'm BU if there is no point by my PU I have it live with the pitcher on the rubber. What I do not understand is the hand up before pointing. The ball is already dead. What does the hand up mean? Wait till I point? Which happens right after I put my hand up. F1 on the rubber, point it live fast. As OBR requires: "After the ball is dead, play shall be resumed when the pitcher takes his place on the pitcher’s plate with a new ball or the same ball in his possession and the plate umpire calls “Play.” The plate umpire shall call “Play” as soon as the pitcher takes his place on his plate with the ball in his possession."

[jimurrayalterego]

On 8/19/2025 at 7:50 PM, Velho said:

I assume (hope) that will include when, without the explicit point, the ball is back in play.

My rant is in the comments. @MadMax will be along to rationalize this one:

 

[MadMax]

On 8/22/2025 at 11:37 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

@MadMax will be along to rationalize this one:

I don’t need to rationalize anything. Bill Miller explained it, on air. He didn’t say, “the Plate Umpire had not put the ball (back) in play”, he said the key element – “the pitcher had not re-engaged the rubber” (paraphrased). 

Since the OP event, I’ve attended 3 MLB games, and in all 3 games, other than the initial point to start the game, the PU – three different PUs from three different crews – did not point (or vocalize “play”) at any other time. 

I’ve also surveyed several MiLB and pro umpires (who have access to MLB guys) who disclose that MLB PUs don’t point; instead, the ball is presumed Live when the pitcher engages. 

So even if an Umpire called/signaled Time, and the ball wasn’t changed out, then upon the pitcher re-engaging, the ball returns to being Live. This is in the p/Professional game (I can’t speak for every independent pro league, and I cannot confirm it with the Pros, only speculate); certainly, in the amateur game, it’s best to direct / require the PU to physically signal the ball Live again. 

[jimurrayalterego]

30 minutes ago, MadMax said:

I don’t need to rationalize anything. Bill Miller explained it, on air. He didn’t say, “the Plate Umpire had not put the ball (back) in play”, he said the key element – “the pitcher had not re-engaged the rubber” (paraphrased). 

Since the OP event, I’ve attended 3 MLB games, and in all 3 games, other than the initial point to start the game, the PU – three different PUs from three different crews – did not point (or vocalize “play”) at any other time. 

I’ve also surveyed several MiLB and pro umpires (who have access to MLB guys) who disclose that MLB PUs don’t point; instead, the ball is presumed Live when the pitcher engages. 

So even if an Umpire called/signaled Time, and the ball wasn’t changed out, then upon the pitcher re-engaging, the ball returns to being Live. This is in the p/Professional game (I can’t speak for every independent pro league, and I cannot confirm it with the Pros, only speculate); certainly, in the amateur game, it’s best to direct / require the PU to physically signal the ball Live again. 

I think Miller's explanation makes it clear they have reverted to the J-R interp. I know in the recent past MLB umps were pointing it. Do we think reimplementing the J-R interp was due to the pitch clock? This crew did negate their dead ball balk as opposed to the OP crew.

[johnnyg08]

The most likely thing is that they screwed up. 

Yeah...it was a crew signal all right...it was the signal of "Time" 

And it's okay...it's not a bashing post..just an honest one. We all make mistakes, even in MLB. 

[Velho]

48 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

The most likely thing is that they screwed up. 

Yeah...it was a crew signal all right...it was the signal of "Time"

I assume that's referring to OP...

And in the sub-post of Rays/Yankees, it was F1 not knowing the unwritten practice of how "Ball Back Into Play Following Time" works.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

I assume that's referring to OP...

And in the sub-post of Rays/Yankees, it was F1 not knowing the unwritten practice of how "Ball Back Into Play Following Time" works.

In that sit F1 and the rest of ump crew might not have realized U1 called time. It was quick and not that emphatic. We don't know if time was called due to a possibly injured R1 or a dirty ball. Normally F3 would throw the ball to the dugout and F1 would get one from the PU.