Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Do you think it is right OR INTENDED that the slowness of the umpire is a factor in whether play continues? Would that Bfair?
Rich
[/B]
|
Rich, I am very pleased you brought up the concept of "INTENT" as I feel that is exactly what all of this is about.
I think we will all agree that a balk could be termed an infraction caused by illegal play (against the rules). In a live ball situation the offense is attempting to advance, and when the defense balks (makes an illegal play)
why should that cause the ball to become dead
until the offense has completed its effort to advance during that play? That is exactly why the batter can hit a delivered pitch, and the NAPBL says do not call "Time" until
all play has ceased. The rules protect the offense's right to continue their advance to and beyond the base they would be awarded.
The rules do not intend to allow the defense to strip the offense of their right to advance while play is occurring. Of course, to go beyond that which would be awarded is at their own risk, but their
right to complete that effort is protected. The offense is not the offender of the rules in this play---why are you trying to penalize them by taking their legs out from under them after play has commenced (and contradictory to wording in the NAPBL) ????
In your situation, the runner has started running
prior to the balk occurring yet you are going to allow the defense to perform an illegal act (balk) that will stop the play and take that advance away from the runner? To be honest, since the runner is running before the balk, that is even
greater reason to allow that play to continue vs. the one specifically addressed in the book----which is a delivered pitch. Even in the delivered pitch we all know the batter has not yet decided to or begun to swing prior to the balk. Yet the rule protects his ability to attempt to advance (as it does the runner).
Thanks for bringing up "intent". Now, tell me why they want to stop the play in progress in your situation when R1 is already running prior to the balk. Is it the intent of the rulemakers to make the umpire memorize the rule vs. understand the game? Please refute this post with logic vs. "the rules say so" as the rules appear to say two things. We know if the pitcher threw to first you would allow the play to continue. Heck, you would allow it to continue even if R1 were not attempting to advance, right? Why does anyone want to kill this play while R1's attempt to advance iS still in progress (and, in fact, started prior to the balk occurring) ???? Please provide the "
logic of the intent" of the rule that allows you to
diregard the NAPBL's statement to "wait until all play has ceased" before calling "Time".
__________________________________________________ ____
BTW, Rich, the "slowness" of the umpire in calling "Time", as indicated in the quote of yours, is
irrelevant since such continued action is done so under a delayed dead ball situation which comnmenced with the "balk" call. Agreed??
If the balk is enforced it is done so from the time of the balk, not from the time in which the official declares "time". There is no harm, therefore, in providing the offense their right to continue.Just my opinion,
Steve
Member
EWS