View Single Post
  #66 (permalink)  
Old Mon Feb 05, 2007, 10:30pm
David B David B is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,772
That sounds right!

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarolinablue
Sorry to dig up an old thread, but we had quite a discussion in our clinic tonight about the rule change to 6.2.1.e, which now states "For infraction (e), a ball shall be called each time a pitcher violates this rule."

Previously (i.e. in 2006), 6.2.1.e was treated the same as 6.2.1.(a-d), which allowed for an immediate dead ball, and umpire discretion on ejection. Now, you are to award a ball for each infraction. Where it is unclear, and the point of our debate, is should a ball be awarded if it is a balk situation (i.e. if there is a runner on base, do you award both a balk as well as a ball on the batter). I was staunchly on the side of doing awarding both a base to the runner(s) and a ball to the batter, but in the publication "2007 High School Baseball Rules by Topic", on page 52, there is a comment section, part of which states "When a balk is called, it never includes the awarding of a ball in addition to and advance by the runner(s)."

Based on this, I believe now that you do NOT both award a base to the runner(s) AND a ball to the batter, but only the award to the runner(s). However, as is often the case with Fed, the rulebook doesn't specifically make this distinction, and the emphasis on "a ball shall be called each time" makes it confusing. I suppose I was reading too much into it, and the fact it would be a balk with runners on would supercede this, and you would not penalize the defense twice. Thoughts?
I agree with your logic, when you penalize the infraction as a balk, there is no further penalty. The award of a ball to the batter is for the times that there are no runners - that is the change in rule.

I don't really understand the logic behind the rule change, but it is what it is.

Speaking of meetings, we discussed the crazy rule change about coaches being in the boxes etc., No one could seem to find any logic behind that change - more like typical FED changes.

Thanks
David
Reply With Quote