[cbfoulds]

Well, fellows: I think I have found the answer. What we need is for Bob or Tee, or someone with some connections in FEDLandia to get a case play and a Point of Emphasis in next year's books. I have taken the liberty of drafting language for both which I think might solve this confusion once and for all:

Case Book:

6.2.4 Situation Z: . Runner at 2d base [can’t bring myself to call it R1 @ 2d, even for immortality in the NFHS Casebook]. Pitching from the set position, F1, who has been using a pitching motion like Randy Johnson, lifts his left leg and turns his body to 2nd base and leans at the runner, using a motion that looks more like Luis Tiant, and then comes to the plate with a pitch (a) in a continuous, uninterrupted motion; or (b) after pausing, motionless, for a discernable time.

Ruling: Legal in (a); balk in (b). In both situations, the Base Umpire, PS2Man is wrong, because there is no balk for using Tiant’s ugly motion after habitually pitching in the style of Johnson.

* * * * * * * *

Points of Emphasis:

Rules myths It has come to the attention of the Rules Committee that some umpires are insisting on being shown specific rules that say that certain acts by a pitcher are not balks, even though there is no language in the Rule Book which suggests that the act in question IS a balk. The Committee would like to remind PS2Man that if an act is not prohibited by rule, then it is permitted. The Committee feels that it would be counterproductive to specifically address every rules myth that currently exists, as this would only encourage PS2Man and others like him to invent new myths, under the pretext that there is no specific rule reference proving them wrong. It is hoped that umpires will read the text with comprehension, and not try to interpret a rule to mean something completely different from what it actually says. The Committee also sincerely hopes that telling PS2Man he is wrong is good enough for him, because after this we are out of options.

That would HAVE to work, wouldn't it?