Quote:
Originally posted by JensWo
Situation:
R1, Count 3:2, less than 2 out.
1. we have a balk call followed by a pitch
2. Ball 4: [Baker] BR --> 1st, R1 -->2nd [8.05 Penalty no reference to the balk any more)
3. Appeal at 1st base against BR is enforced because of BOT 6.07 (b) + (a)1. [Able should have batted.]
What's your Call?
What is your opinion? I couldn't find anything in J/R-Manual/ Evans - ABR/ Childress - BRD
Jens Wolfhagen
|
Note: I edited the original message.
As most of you know, I post only on the rarest of occasions. Since Jens mentioned the BRD, I'll make one of those exceptions here.
Answer one: The common sense approach is to read the exact language of 6.07: Able, the proper batter is out; Baker, the improper batter is removed from first; and R1 returns to first.
He didn't advance on the balk; he advanced because Baker walked.
Believe me, that's the answer every protest board would enforce. You can't confuse adminstrators with interpretations. That's a strength of protest boards that we often denigrate.
There is an interesting PBUC interpretation that clarifies the "common sense approach." For those with the BRD, you'll find the information in section 342.
Note: There are three typos in that section, all of which I have corrected in the 2004 edition.
Play: R1, R2, 0 out: B1 flies to right. R2 tags, R1 goes half way. The fly is caught, and R2 advances to third. The defense wishes to appeal. The pitcher tries to throw to third for a tag of the runner and balks but throws wild. R3 scores, but R1 is thrown out trying to reach third on the throw home.
Fitzpatrick - PBUC - in phone call to me, 11/08/01: Because the baserunners advanced to the bases they would have received, we proceed without reference to the balk - as it applies to their advance. But a balk
anytime cancels the right of the defense to appeal.
The point: The powers-that-be don't reference the balk, but they reference the balk. Very strange!
Answer two: That
could mean that in the enciting play of this thread R1 would be allowed to remain at second: After all, the pitcher
did balk.
The problem with this second answer, and any rationale offered by umpires who want to leave R1 at second, is a practical one: Nobody in authority really cares about close, analytical scruitiny of the rules.
What does it say?
What will we do?
Where I umpire, 99 out of 100 umpires would call out Abel and bring R1 back to first. (I'd be one of those 99.) The one who wouldn't bring him back, obviously a follower of this board, won't be calling here very long. (No, it's not old Smitty. He's too dumb to think of anything else.)
[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 26th, 2003 at 04:14 PM]