Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
It's judgment, pure and simple. But when you see a pitcher employing nonstandard mechanics to simulate a motion that is obviously associated with the pitching motion, and your experience and judgment tell you that he is doing that with clear intent to incite the runner into believing he has begun a motion to pitch, then rather than just tell yourself "gee, that's ugly, but ugly ain't a balk," you now know that the spirit and intent of the balk rule is to balk that move and nip that **** in the bud, pronto.
You'll be surprised how un-Calvinball-like the game will be when you enforce this.
|
Dave:
We are now officially comitting agravated assault upon a deceased equine.
"...judgment ... intent ... balk that ....": yep- I said I'd be able to apply this on the field. You seemed concerned that I didn't understand WHY. I still don't understand, but it makes no difference. I'll enforce it [in the unlikely event I ever have it happen - 14 years and "not yet"]
Now: to, perhaps, move the discussion forward [or at least out of the circular path it is currently taking] -
Some time back, I'm BU; RHP uses a very unremarkable stretch/step/pitch kinda motion for 3 innings. 4th inning, R2: same F1 makes a VERY different move; hard to describe, but he brings his left knee up sharply, across his body toward 2d turning his torso as well, although his left foot does NOT cross behind the rubber [not that it matters, in this case]. R2 and the base coaches conclude that F1 is going to 2d, but they are very wrong, as he continues his motion and delivers to the plate "without hesitation or interruption", while R2 is picking himself out of the dirt.
Let us be clear: there was nothing about the "new" motion that in any way violated any of the published pitching rules- it was, by itself, mechanically a perfectly legal delivery. It was, however, clearly "intended to deceive" the runner [and maybe the batter]; and it suceeded spectacularly in doing so.
Some people on the field [including one of the officials] though this was a balk, because F1 "intentionally deceived" the runner.
WOULD YOU [and maybe Jim E.] AGREE? Or would you agree with the other half of the observers, who saw no balk.