View Single Post
  #18 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jun 30, 2006, 11:28pm
UmpJM UmpJM is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

LakeErieUmp,

Glad to see you took my comments in the spirit intended. I was, of course referencing:

Quote:
Rule 12.06

(c)(2) During the course of the game ONLY COACHES are allowed to make up rules which have no foundation in the text, official interpretations, or history of the rules. APPROVED RULING: While the umpire may, at his sole discretion, entertain discussion of such made up rules with the coach (strictly for the entertaiment value), there will be NO ENFORCEMENT of any such rules.
That one I made up.

However, I did not make up either of the following. First, from JEA (my emphasis):

Quote:
With a runner on third...the pitcher is working from the wind-up position. The pitcher starts his motion and the runner breaks for home. With a left-handed batter at bat...the catcher steps out into the rear of the right-handed batter's box to take the pitch..and easily tags out the runner.

RULING: This runner is out. The catcher may leave his position behind the plate anytime except when an intentional walk is being given. The catcher, of course, cannot step on or in front of home plate while the pitch is en route.
Additionally, from the BRD we have:

Quote:
Note 297-285: During a pitch-out the catcher may jump from his box at any time, regardless of whether the pitcher has started his preliminary motion.
I find absolutely NO SUPPORT for your assertion that "...the catcher SHALL be behind the plate, UNTIL he has to catch a pitch. ...". The rule certainly doesn't say that. The authoritative opinions don't say that.

The ONLY times a catcher can "create" a balk are:

1. During an intentional walk.

2. During a steal of home or squeeze play by interfering with the batter's opportunity to hit the pitch.

So, again, I say if you call a balk because the catcher "left the box" in ANY other circumstance, you are just plain wrong. There is NO support for such a call in either the rules or ANY recognized interpretation.

JM
Reply With Quote