[Kaliix]

You know what Garth, as tempted as I am, I am not going to name call or make this personal with you. I have a great respect for the personal e-mails you have sent me regarding questions that I have asked and from your responses that I have learned from on this board. In general, my comments were never directed at you. I'll leave it at that.

Your comment about "a balk they never saw" is a red-herring. There was never any disagreement about what the move was. We all agreed on what happened, but disagreed on the interpretation.

You did not answer my question, though I could have phrased it better. I asked you "What do I think about about simulating a pitching motion and intent?" I thought it was clear that I was asking you opinion of those two things based on the situation we were talking about. Your response "I think they are inseparable. If I believe he is simulating a pitch then I must believe it is intentional."

The only problem is that you didn't give your answer in regards to the situation we have been discussing. You obviously thought you could respond with a nonresponse and I would buy it. I am sorry, but you were wrong. I asked for your opinion and you didn't give it in regards to the situation.

Also, I disagree with your "rulebook" umpire statement. I believe that you mean that a "rulebook" umpire may know the written rules in the book, but doesn't understand their interpretation or know how to apply them. Since, in this case, I did know the rule, I did understand it's interpretation and I stated that I would have applied it correctly, I don't think your label applies. If you think it does, I will in this case be happy to be called a rule book umpire.

And while you can be offended by the "Instead, all those who believe this not to be a balk would believe..." the statement is true. All those who believed the move we were discussing was not a balk had to believe all three of those statements. Because if even one of them were true, a balk should be called.

I apologize if holding you feet to the fire offended you. But I have been arguing a 13 against 2 (maybe 3, right Rich) discussion and some of the people who have been arguing against me have been belittling in their comments, as referenced below.

I have tried hard to keep this from getting personal. While all along, I have strongly believed that I was right, I, for the most part, have tried to use logical arguements to make my points. If any of you go back and read my comments, I have taken great care to fully explain my logic and have even directly answered most of the arguements made against me.

I feel that Mr. Evan's answer vindicated all three positions I was taking.

If Jim Evan's had said that the move we were discussing were not a balk, I would have come on the board, made my apologies and eaten crow. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.

How many others of you out there feel the same way?







I went back and read the thread again and counted 13 people who disagreed with the fact that the situation described was a balk. I was told:

"I'm not sure how or why a balk should be called on a move expressly allowed in the rules. what other legal movements do we balk??? "

"WHICH rule says how high F1 can/can't lift his [pivot] leg when moving it from in front to behind the rubber?"

"I don't see how this move mimics a pitch"

"LilLeaguer nailed you, K."

"What "Pitching motion" was he "simulating" while not in contact w/ the rubber?"

"SURELY you are not claiming that lifting the PIVOT leg off the rubber was a "simulation" of the pitch while not-in-contact?"

"Got any actual RULE [from the Book, now - not "definitions" YOU make up] you think this might have violated?"

"So does that mean every pitcher that lifts his "free" foot more than a few inches during a delivery from the windup position would be guilty of balk?!?
I don't think so."

"Lifting your leg up, isn't a step; It's simply just lifting your leg up!"

"Apparently some umpires have difficulty understanding what is and what is not part of a pitching motion from the set position. Lifting the pivot foot from the set position is definitlely NOT part of a pitching motion."

"Please give us your explanation to the coach as to what rule in the book has been violated.........."

"Rule doesn't say "step normally", nor even "step like 999 out of 1000 random people would step": merely "step backwards". No interpretation, using common sense or otherwise, required."

"that's just silly. Lifting the PIVOT leg is NEVER "associated with ..." ANY form of pitching motion"

"If'n it ain't a balk at 6", it ain't a balk at 18: ya' got no rule support for making the distinction. You are making this one up on your own. The "it's not a BACKWARD step" is lame, not to mention illogical and without any supporting authority; and if you called it, you SHOULD lose the protest. But, hey, call what you can get away with, I guess."

"How can you balk a pitcher when he did nothing that is against the rules."

"Yet, it seems like you are attempting to develop a limit on your own.
While you offer good support in quote from JR, remember that JR is talking continuous movement and doesn't address height of the rise of the pivot foot. Don't try to add something to it that is not there."

"The pitcher has broken no pitching rule........
The pitcher here has not balked........
An umpire who cannot explain to a complaining offensive coach why a balk has not occurred here needs to understand the rules better........."

"Not a balk. Not even deceptive in my book because in raising the PIVOT foot he did not simulate a pitching motion. And yes, in order to move my foot back, I first have to lift it up. Why is this even a question for debate? It's too obvious (at least to me)."

"How does the move described deceive the runner? It doesn't. It was a "strange" step, true. But it was a step. Not a balk."

"No base runner who has any coaching at all will be picked off by a pitcher who is set and lifts his pivot foot first, no matter how high he lifts it. No rules violation, no balk."

"Note that a move "simulating" a pitch [whatever that may mean - here you are apparently using it to mean something that sorta-kinda looks like but is NOT "a motion NATURALLY associated with" the pitch] IS NOT FORBIDDEN by this rule."

"To repeat: the only rule violated by this move is the old: don't-do-anything-so-ugly-that-it-wakes-up-the-umpire, lest he balk it on the principle that if it's that ugly it must be illegal, -Rule[9.01Q]. However, that Rule only applies in CalvinBall, so most of us are not supposed to be using it."

"This is a ludicrous argument. Nobody pitches by lifting their pivot foot first and if htey did it would be balk for not being on contact with the rubber. Raad the responses and adjust."

"I am not going to discuss this anymore. It is obvious that you will never be convinced that stepping off from the set position with the pivot foot is not a balk."

"If you follow Kalix's "logic" then there's no difference betwen a (normal) step-off and a (normal) step back with the non-pivot foot -- those are both MOTIONs associated with the pitch -- so even the normal step back should be a balk."

"...Bob: maybe Hensley will believe you [I've given up on Kaliix]. And Dave, I'm balking those "other moves" you mentioned every time. Not this one - it's a step off and nothing more."

"Okay if you want to try logic, then give me a rule where it says that F1 cannot lift his knee up as he steps backwards.
There is no rule. You keep quoting a portion of the rule that says he "must step backward" but it doesn't say anything in the rule about the preliminary motions that may come before he steps backward. This is like a merry go round - bottom line is that the pitcher did not balk. He simply was stepping back."

"Wrong. Twice. It was not umpires who wrote the OBR. And just becuase one disagrees with you does not condemn them to being unable to follow logic.
Bob makes sense. If you were less emotionally invested in your position, you would see that."

"Arrogantly? I don't think so. Kaliix's "logic" is still suspect, but I can accept that the answer here is "because it just is" a deceptive balk."