Awards for a bulk

klp3515 · #1 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 10:01am

At any time during a pitchers wind-up a balk is called by either umpire (the pitch is delivered to the batter).
1. No runners on base batter swings (ball or strike)?
2. With runners on base and full count to batter what is the award?
3. Batter is hit by pitch?
In the NFHS rule book a balk (6.1.1,2,3) is a immediately dead ball in the situations above can any of the pitches be legal?

My confusion stems from the Senior Little League balk penalty rule of ball four, hit batter or batter hits the pitch. It states that "when a balk is called it is neither a ball nor strike unless the pitch is ball four awarding the batter first base forcing the runners to advance". Little League Rule Book (8.05m)

How can the these situations happen if the ball is immediately dead?

Rich Ives · #2 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 10:11am

It can happen because the rules are different.

In FED the ball is immeduiately dead on a balk, thus none of your three things mean beans.

In OBR, which LL uses, the ball is delayed dead. Then, if the ball is pitched and the batter AND ALL runners advance safely at least one base, the balk is ignored. If the condition is not met for any reason, the the balk is enforced.

GarthB · #3 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 10:27am

I'm confused:

How can an umpire call a balk with no runners on base?

klp3515 · #4 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 11:11am

Thank you Rich for clearing up this ruling you have help very much.It now make sense to me and answers alot of questions.

Thank you again.....

GarthB · #5 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 11:17am

Apparently our new friend, klp3515, is a bit thin skinned. I posted that I was confused by the actions taking by an umpire, that is, calling a balk with no runners on base. I am always confused when umpires do something contrary to the rules, yet I assume that they have their reason and I would like to know it.

I didn't mean, and I do not find anything offensive about my question. I wasn't challenging Mr. klp3515. I didn't assume he was the umpire. It sounded more like he was a spectator or coach.

But, none-the-less, I received the following email shortly after my post:

"I am very sorry for confusing you with the miss wording of my question. It should have read illegal pitch not balk. I really appreciate the fact that you pointed out my mistake and not answer the question. I thought this form was to help not slam others. I can see that I am wrong and should seek out my questions else where.

Thank you again for setting me straight."

To klp3515: My confusion was genuine. My failure to answer your question was based on my desire to have all the facts first. I found it difficult to answer your question about balks when it appeared the umpire was calling them without the required conditions.

Trust me, if I had chosen to insult you, it would have not have been done so blandly. Mellow out a little and welcome to the board.

GB

jicecone · #6 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 05:16pm

So lets face it GarthB, wether it was "blandly or blantly", it still was an insult.

Come on admit it, KLP3515 was definitly more tactful on this one.

GarthB · #7 (**permalink**) Thu Jun 13, 2002, 05:38pm

It will never cease to amaze me how many internet posters canread minds, divine intent and accuse others of doing what they read into something.

I guess I'll just have to stop asking questions, make assumptions as to what I think the poster means and then convict him what I think he may have done. Oh, wait a minute, that's what you did.

(This time, any slight perceived was indeed intentional. That's another characteristic I have. Those who know me know that I will admit when I have insulted someone. Trust me. I don't deny my handiwork.)