8.05 Comment "Deception" Languag

[UmpJM]

Gentlemen (and Rosa),

At Dix's suggestion, I'm starting a new thread from a different post. Here's how it started...

I will say it again, umpires need to take deception out of their vocabulary. It is such a little part of the balk rule it needs be elliminated from almost all consideration.

Michael,

Since you brought it up....

First, I believe I wholeheartedly concur with your statement above.

Second, and more interesting to me, WHY do you think that language is in there? I mean, it IS there. (I'm specifically referring to the language in the OBR 8.05 "End Note".)

I have pondered that question for quite a while, and I've got a theory. But, I would be interested in what others think before I try to articulate my thoughts.

JM

And, to be clear, I'm specifically referring to this language from the text of the OBR:

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. ...

What does that mean ? What say you?

JM

[UmpTTS43]

I believe this language was in place prior to the balk rule being changed to where all the specific infractions were defined. Now that the rule is specific in nature with official interpretations it is to be disregarded.

[UmpTTS43]

The only time I ever used this phrasing is when I wanted to stick it to a coach who constantly wanted a balk for "deception" while the pitcher was within his legal rights. With bases loaded the pitcher had a barely noticeable no stop. Coach wanted balk.

"Did he intentionally deceive your runners?"

"No."

"Then it's not a balk."

This was a one time occurrence. Do not try this at home.

[sdix00]

Gentlemen (and Rosa),

At Dix's suggestion, I'm starting a new thread from a different post. Here's how it started...

I will say it again, umpires need to take deception out of their vocabulary. It is such a little part of the balk rule it needs be elliminated from almost all consideration.

Michael,

Since you brought it up....

First, I believe I wholeheartedly concur with your statement above.

Second, and more interesting to me, WHY do you think that language is in there? I mean, it IS there. (I'm specifically referring to the language in the OBR 8.05 "End Note".)

I have pondered that question for quite a while, and I've got a theory. But, I would be interested in what others think before I try to articulate my thoughts.

JM

And, to be clear, I'm specifically referring to this language from the text of the OBR:

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. ...

What does that mean ? What say you?

JM

I have come to understand:

1. Deception is LEGAL.

2. Deliberate deception is LEGAL.

3. It is the Pitcher's job to deceive, within the rules.

I have come to BELIEVE:

1. " the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner" is language that can easily be misinterpreted and misapplied. It is not a rule in and of itself. It simply provides guidance in how to apply the ACTUAL balk rules found in 8.05 ONLY.

I have applied this guidance this way -

In cases where F1 has technically balked, but in a very borderline manner, I have asked myself:

1. Was this deliberate?

2. Are the runners really deceived?

For example -

1. F1, in the SET, takes a deep breath and raises his shoulders. Technically he started his motion, BUT it was not an attempt to deliberately deceive the runners AND the runners were not decieved.

2. F1, in the SET, may shudder or flinch. Technically he started his motion, BUT it was not an attempt to deliberately deceive the runners AND the runners were not decieved. At higher levels, like Pro ball, runners often will key on ANY motion, and a balk should be called here because it is appropriate to the level of play and to the situation. Or simply, because they are elite players, ANY motion should be judged an attempt to intentionally deceive.

3. F1, in the STRETCH, brings his hands together to momentarily adjust the ball, then separates again. Technically a balk, but no deliberate deception.

4. F1, straddles the rubber, appears to take his sign, then snaps a throw to 3B for a pickoff. IN FED, I am allowed to call a balk here. Since I judged the taking of the signs off the rubber to be a deliberate attempt to coax the runner off the base in to a primary lead, I am calling a balk for the "technical balk" of taking signs while off the rubber.

I KNOW some folks will not agree with the actual rulings in the four examples above. Those debates can be found on other threads.

The point here is to illustrate my understanding of the 8.05 comment, my belief that the language could be better, and my actual application of the comment in guiding me in calling borderline balks.

[SnareDrum]

It's almost like they left the language in there to allow the umpires some latitude. If the pitcher does something not specifically within the rules, now it's up to you interpret "deception". By leaving these words there, they've pretty much allowed the umpire to make the balk call, even if what the pitcher did was not specifically, or "technically" mentioned.

On the other hand, yes, the way it could be interpreted is simply that the purpose of the rule is to prevent deception. But does it say anything (book not handy at moment), about the umpire using his judgment of deception for making the call outside of the specifics covered in the book? As SDIX said, it is not a rule in and of itself. It seems to be more of an explanation of the intent of the rule. This is the mindset I have right now....

I've never used "he deceived the runner" as the sole reason in making a balk call, but I've seen and heard of it.

[sdix00]

It's almost like they left the language in there to allow the umpires some latitude. If the pitcher does something not specifically within the rules, now it's up to you interpret "deception". By leaving these words there, they've pretty much allowed the umpire to make the balk call, even if what the pitcher did was not specifically, or "technically" mentioned.

I would argue the exact opposite. (I think this is where you were headed, as well)

This language does not allow latitude for the umpire to call a balk for something that is not specifically in 8.05. Conversely, it allows us NOT to call something that technically is a violation of 8.05.

Calling something that is not in 8.05 is dangerous. We should ALWAYS be able to explain the exact rule that was violated when calling balks. i.e. "F1 feinted to 1B without completing the throw", rather than "F1 deceived the runner back to 1B".

Additionally, by maintaining that the comment is not a rule in and of itself, we avoid using it as the sole reason to call a balk.

[SnareDrum]

It's almost like they left the language in there to allow the umpires some latitude. If the pitcher does something not specifically within the rules, now it's up to you interpret "deception". By leaving these words there, they've pretty much allowed the umpire to make the balk call, even if what the pitcher did was not specifically, or "technically" mentioned.

I would argue the exact opposite. (I think this is where you were headed, as well)

This language does not allow latitude for the umpire to call a balk for something that is not specifically in 8.05. Conversely, it allows us NOT to call something that technically is a violation of 8.05.

Calling something that is not in 8.05 is dangerous. We should ALWAYS be able to explain the exact rule that was violated when calling balks. i.e. "F1 feinted to 1B without completing the throw", rather than "F1 deceived the runner back to 1B".

Additionally, by maintaining that the comment is not a rule in and of itself, we avoid using it as the sole reason to call a balk.

I beleive that's exactly where I was going with the "on the other hand" paragraph. In a post earlier, somebody mentioned the ol' fashioned step-off & fake to third and a balk was called under "he deceived the runner". If that's a valid reason, then it needs to be followed with HOW and which 8.#.# was it?

As to why the language is there? It does seem that the statement is there to better define the balk section and why it's there, not as an on-the-field "IMHO he deceived the runner". I've seen a few "balk or not" type of questions on tests or in a forum, but have never seen one that had "the runner was deceived" even as a choice of answer. If my UIC asks me at post-game why I called that balk, I better have a better answer than "deception".

Maybe wording like: "It is a balk when the the pitcher deceives the runner(s) by: 1).... etc..." That is, if the D word stays in there.

[mstaylor]

The deception clause was an umpire instruction that was added to the actual rulebook in 1972 or somewhere abouts. It was in their manual and added many, many years after that balk rule was written. It is to be used to tip the scale in a borderline balk. If you call a balk you need to be able to explain why, it looked weird or it was deception are not explanantions.

Let me give you an example where the deception clause can swing the vote on a balk. I have a friend of mine that was a famous knee popper when he pitched in HS and men's league, I know, I banged him in both leagues. What he would do was come set, then flinch his pivot leg and then make a move to first. Sometimes he would pitch. Either way his intention was to drive the runner back or make him break for second. By no stretch of the imagination was he starting his pitching motion and stopping, but that would be the basis I would cite. Why was he doing it? To fake the runner without risking a throw or get him going the wrong way on the pitch. If the manager were to come out I would simply say it was a flinch balk. 90% of HS managers are going to understand that. If they need more I explain that he flinched his leg which starts his motion and then didn't finish.

I think this is going to be a good discussion.

[noumpere]

I think it means that if theres a borderline move and it was intentionally to deceive the runner then call the balk if it wasnt then dont call the balk. Of course, how do you know. Im surprised that someone who went to pro school doesnt answer I would think they would cover this with all the discussion it gets.

[UmpTTS43]

The deception clause was an umpire instruction that was added to the actual rulebook in 1972 or somewhere abouts. It was in their manual and added many, many years after that balk rule was written. It is to be used to tip the scale in a borderline balk. If you call a balk you need to be able to explain why, it looked weird or it was deception are not explanantions.

Let me give you an example where the deception clause can swing the vote on a balk. I have a friend of mine that was a famous knee popper when he pitched in HS and men's league, I know, I banged him in both leagues. What he would do was come set, then flinch his pivot leg and then make a move to first. Sometimes he would pitch. Either way his intention was to drive the runner back or make him break for second. By no stretch of the imagination was he starting his pitching motion and stopping, but that would be the basis I would cite. Why was he doing it? To fake the runner without risking a throw or get him going the wrong way on the pitch. If the manager were to come out I would simply say it was a flinch balk. 90% of HS managers are going to understand that. If they need more I explain that he flinched his leg which starts his motion and then didn't finish.

I think this is going to be a good discussion.

Sounds good to me. Thanks for the info on the clause.