|
Balk 1: Tuss, I think that you might win the protest over the first balk, provided you convince the protest committee that the situation described in 8.05(c) is exactly what happened on the field.
I think, however, that this provision of 8.05 is virtually unenforceable. The problem lies with the expression "practically the same motion." If F1 is legitimately going one way and then turns 180°, that can't really be the same motion in my book.
I'm sure there exist situations in which I would enforce that balk, but yours doesn't sound like one of them.
Balk 2: Tuss, I agree with JM that this is not a balk. You've actually cited the correct part of 8.05 on which to rule: when in doubt (and only then), judge whether the pitcher's intent is to deceive.
He can't possibly be trying to deceive anyone on an intentional walk with R2 & R3. No balk.
And if you're going to quibble about his wind-up positioning, you have to do it on his first pitch of the game. Again, that's a booger I decline to pick.
__________________
Cheers,
mb
|