ctblu40,
Quote:
...
Since the batter did not reach first base, and the pitcher did not throw wild, the balk is enforced.
...
|
While I would certainly agree that a
literal reading of the OBR text could lead a reasonable person to this conclusion, I do NOT believe this would be a proper enforcement on the sitch described.
First, in regard to the batter. If the batter does not, by rule, become a runner on the action immediately following the balk (which would require a pitch rather than a pick-off), the bit him about him reaching 1B is not relevant.
Second, in regard to the runner. I believe that the essential element in regard to proper balk enforcement is NOT the "quality" of the pitcher's throw - whether a pitch delivered to the batter or a pick-off throw. I believe the essential element is whether all runners advance at least one base. If they do, the balk is disregarded. If they don't, the umpire calls "TIME!" and the balk is enforced.
Now, I checked the MLBUM and it contains a statement in the "Balk Enforcement" section that says:
Quote:
|
(4) If the balk is followed by a pick-off throw to a base that is caught by a fielder, call "Time" the moment the fielder catches the ball. Then enforce the balk.
|
Obviously, this supports your assertion in regard to the proper OBR ruling. However, being the pig-headed coach that I am, I STILL think I might be right in regard to the proper ruling on the OP.
Because, the same section of the MLBUM also contains the statement:
Quote:
|
The umpire shall not call "Time" until play stops following the balk.
|
In the context of the situation described, these two statements contradict one another. Here's what I think it means.
If the "That's a Balk!" call does not stop the pitcher from throwing/pitching, then the play is allowed to proceed. The play is not killed until:
1. Any runner (including the batter-runner if there is one) is put out before reaching his first advance base.
2. The ball enters dead ball territory.
3. Some other action causes the ball to become dead by rule (Batter is HBP, runner being played upon is obstructed, Offensive interference, etc.)
I am not positive this is correct, but I think it is. I think this, because I don't think it is intended that the defense should benefit from the balk. If the umpire were to retroactively kill the play at the point in time the F3 caught the ball, when the R2 had already committed to 2B (rather than trying to return to 1B) and the F3 subsequently made a wild throw in trying to retire the R1, who made it to 3B, the defense would end up benefitting from the balk call. I don't think that's the intent of the rule.
I'll dig into it a little more and get back tomorrow, by which time I'm sure others will have chimed in.
JM