Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I apparently misread Jim Porter's situation and thought the pitcher was set when the batter stepped out. Nevertheless, I still believe the no-call is the proper call, and I continue to cite 6.02(b)CMT as the applicable justification, because the pitcher clearly failed to go from his stretch to set position because the batter stepped out. Although the letter of every condition of 6.02(b)CMT was not met, certainly the spirit and intent of the CMT is applicable, and therefore the "do-over" instruction in 6.02(b)CMT is the appropriate remedy.
Jim Porter said:
> To believe Mr. Hensley's ruling in this situation would
> require us to believe that any balk committed after a
> batter has stepped out of the box should be ignored.
I disagree; my interpretation does not logically extend to any balk committed by a pitcher after a batter has stepped out; as Jim Mills pointed out, a pitcher balking on a feint or throw to a base is still a balk, as long as the ball is alive, and regardless of where the batter is.
The crux of the 6.02(b)CMT is that the batter's stepping out is the proximate cause of the pitcher's balk. If the balk is not precipitated by the batter's action, the CMT is not applicable.
|
Dave,
I was formulating my response to Jim Mills when you posted.
You say that the spirit and intent of 6.02(b) was met in my situation.
I submit that 6.02(b) was not applicable even in spirit and intent because the batter did not step out of the box while the pitcher was either in set position or after the pitcher had begun his wind-up. This batter did not step out illegally under 6.02(b). The pitcher was in his preliminary motion, not set position.
Basically, folks, you've two choices: Call the balk, ignore the balk. (Sound familiar?)
Whaddyasay?