[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Well, you mentioned CCIW, so it's reasonable (but, I admit, not necessary) to assume that the games were played under NCAA rules. But no matter, because OBR uses the terms distance and direction, and direction implies angle.

Since when? The whole concept of angle was removed from OBR interpretation and training of umpires precisely because it was erroneous and confusing and led to splitting hairs in trying to determine a balk. Did the pitcher go 46*? 50*? 40*? Instead, it became a question of if he stepped more toward home than first, he's got to pitch. He has to gain distance and direction toward first. Either he does this toward first or toward home. One cannot have both, and angles tend to lead to just that.

Sure, an umpire can be surprised by a balk move. But the fact that he is surprised shouldn't be the reason for a balk call.

I never said it was. You simply assumed it. I'm beginning to believe your umpiring is based a lot on assumptions. Regardless, one can and surely has called a balk because of an illegal act that ended up surprising the heck out of the umpire.

The NCAA in no way suggests that 45 degrees is half of the included angle between first and home. Instead, the NCAA rule defines "directly" in terms of 45 degrees, and the rule applies at all three bases.

As someone involved in the NCAA rules process once said at their winter clinics, "We should get away from trying to discern the angle of the pitcher's foot and just focus on where his nonpivot foot goes. If it doesn't go toward the base he throws to, call a balk." When pressed on this 45* angle rule explanation, he advised not to get so hung up on that and that it ought to be removed from the rule book altogether.

I agree.

Of course I would call a balk if the pitcher steps directly toward home while throwing to first. Where we may differ is that under FED or NCAA, "directly" would mean within a 45 degree angle from the line connecting pivot foot to the base. In OBR, in principle, but not in actual practice, the angle would be slightly larger.

Why do I get the feeling that if I asked what time it was here, you'd be the only one who told us how to build a watch instead of just saying the time? That's the problem with too many umpires. They look for the picky BS in things or they just make assumptions based on myths. I made a simple call based on an obvious observation and explained it to the head coach in simple terms. I don't doubt that had you tried to explain the balk call, you'd be making the coach's head spin with terminology of angles, 45*, directly, connecting line, etc.

I've prided myself on my rules acumen and the interpretation aspect of them. One thing I've learned through the years is the K.I.S.S. method works in umpiring, too, especially considering the people who are coaching.