Quote:
Originally posted by buckweat
I want to make it absolutely clear that the last thing I want to give anyone the impression of is that I'm criticizing officials. In fact, quite the contrary. The very good answers I've seen to this issue prove to me that this is not an officiating problem, but rather an administrative and bureaucratic one.
The answer I think is positively the best is, that it be controlled from the first occurrence and that will take care of it 99% of the time. However, there are things that one just has to accept given the current state of the rules that I find very difficult to accept.
I'm a big believer in definitions. I've looked in the OBR and although the work "unsportsmanlike" is used 4 times, there is nothing that defines it. that means its another one of those nebulous "judgement" things that get everyone in trouble.
I'm not talking about writing a dissertation that covers every conceivable kind of UC, but something very general like a lot of the other definitions. For instance. UNSPORTSMANLIKE CONDUCT is any conduct which could cause injury, denigrates any participant, violates established rules, causes damage to personal property, or by its nature is not in the spirit of fair play.
My guess is in umpire schools or casebooks, there is something like that, so why keep it a secret? As long as the decision remains with "blue" why not make it clear to everyone?
I'm also not a big believer in hearing the reasoning that some rule is just ignored because it doesn't apply anymore. That just evading the issue. If the rule no longer is a good one, get rid of it and then there won't have to be case book items on it and people who go to different umpire schools won't be getting taught different things.
The "straddling the rubber" issue is so silly at it base that I'm almost ashamed to be arguing about it. if a pitcher does it, it violates a rule. it is so similar in nature to the other reasons balks are called, why not just list it as a balk and be done with it? That way there's no controversy and it would probably be one of the easiest balks to understand.
By definition a balk_ "is an illegal act by a pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base."
Straddling the rubber and talking signs is an illegal act, just as a quick pitch is an illegal act. If a quick pitch occurs with no runners on base, the penalty is the pitch will be called a ball. Inadvertently dropping the ball with runners on is a balk and with nor runners on is a ball. Why make the penalty for a violation of something an ejection?
I guess without the benefit of studying umpiring and actually working games, I'm getting hung up on 8.05, "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner."
Since there are penalties for the same illegal acts whether there are runners on or not, why not just do the same with straddling the rubber and taking signs?
Oh well, I guess all I can say is thanks for the insight.
|
You brought up so many issues!
There are a number of necessary definitions that do not appear in the OBR. Feel free to add, "Time of Pitch," and, "Play Or Attempted Play," to that list. You need the PBUC Manual to find official definitions of those.
I might've given you the wrong impression about one thing. The casebook comments are incorporated into the rules of the OBR. They are not in some separate book. They're right there in the rules themselves.
We do not have the power just to, "get rid of," archaic rules. We do not own the Official Baseball Rules. Major League Baseball owns it. We're just borrowing it. It's not evading the issue to ignore archaic rules - it's correct and proper.
Yes, straddling the rubber and taking signs is, indeed, illegal. But it is illegal for a reason. That reason speaks to spirit and intent. That's why umpires must make judgments, and they use the spirit and intent of the rules to make those judgments. Advantage/disadvantage, no harm/no foul - that's what officiating is all about. So, if the rule exists to keep pitchers from quick-pitching, it really shouldn't be enforced unless the pitcher quick-pitches, you see?
Yes, by definition a balk, "is an illegal act by a pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base," and, "straddling the rubber and taking signs is an illegal act,". However, straddling the rubber and taking signs is not an illegal act that entitles all runners to advance one base, you see? Only a balk is that, and balks are listed quite effectively under 8.05.
Quote:
|
"Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner."
|
You must understand the audience for the above quote to understand its meaning. It was written for professional umpires in professional baseball where pitchers pushed the envelope of the balk rule year after year. At one time, the rules committee sought to end freak deliveries. It has been quite some time since a, "new," balk requiring the umpire to consider that text has occurred. You will not see a balk occur that is not already listed under 8.05.
Finally, you said, ". . .there are penalties for the same illegal acts whether there are runners on or not . . ." If I understand your meaning, it is not true. Only illegal acts listed under 8.05 are balks. Violations listed under 8.01 and 8.02, if not also listed under 8.05, would not be balks. They have their own distinct penalties whether there are runners on or not.
For example, going to the mouth on the circle, applying expectorate or some other foreign material to the ball, defacing the ball, etc. would not be balks with runners on base. They have their own penalty - a ball called and a warning issued. While these are illegal acts, they are not illegal acts entitling all runners to advance one base.