View Single Post
  #104 (permalink)  
Old Wed Jun 01, 2005, 09:20am
PeteBooth PeteBooth is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
Originally posted by 3appleshigh

This is probably a HTBT, but here is what i have.

R1 - Right handed pitcher.

Pitcher in stretch comes to the set position. Looks toward the base runner, (head turn only). Lifts his Pivot foot, straight up in the air as High as he can, (like a lefty pitcher would do with his free foot before deciding home or first base) then steps off and quickly spins to see what runner is doing.

Now I balked this, I said and still believe this particular fact, the pitcher did this action for the sole purpose of decieving the runner. I also believed at the split second, but am waivering now that the move is {"mimicing"} a motion naturally associated with a pitch.

Has anyone else ever seen this, is it a balk? What are your thoughts??

First off this thread will be probably be in the top 5 for number of "hits" and responses. I still think Peter Osborne's thread holds the record but am incertain.

Ok to the thread itself.

There's no need to add any further rule interp as Dave has posted Mr. Evan's response.

I will add this to the discussion. The OBR as it exists today has many errors, but they should be given credit for the commentary at the end of 8.05. The rules committee probably realized that it was virtually impossible to put in writing ALL aspects of what constitutes a balk.

As umpires we are asked to judge intent in just about every game we do. Some infractions involve No intent (the easy ones) such as a batter falling or walking right in front of F2.

Some involve the use of intent.

If, in the judgment of the umpire, a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play

Ok I know this thread talks about a balk, but the point I am making is that as umpires we use good sound judgement when making certain calls. We need to know what's going on and use certain indicators in judging intent.

Another balk NOT specifically mentioned in the rule-book is the infamous F1 "hanging" his leg out to purposely freeze the runner. You will not find the word "hanging" in the rule-book.

Now just because certain moves do look wierd is not cause for a balk, but in the situation given it is a balk yesterday, today and tomorrow.

When I first read the thread I thought it would probably get approx 8-10 responses as IMO it is a No Brainer of a call. There are many more complicated rulings that could bring out a plethora of responses but I thought this thread would not. I was amazed that this thread escallated to where it did.

Pete Booth

[Edited by PeteBooth on Jun 1st, 2005 at 10:23 AM]
Peter M. Booth