[drumsub]

This debate has raged for decades, and with the recent Japanese team trying to position their 3rd basemen behind the catcher to defend against a pass ball/wild pitch it has come into the public mindset again.

It would be nice if MLB would put the debate to rest by properly writing the rule (since everyone else derives rules in some form or fashion from MLB, whether they keep up with the changes in a timely manner or not).

Rule 5.02 (4.03)
When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.
(a) The catcher shall position himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.
Penalty: Balk.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret the above. The common one is that it's only a balk if the catcher is out of the box. "Don't do that" is the common mantra regarding fielders, and in fact is how it was handled in the recent game in Japan.

Using that logic the only time it's a balk under the 2015 wording is on an intentional walk.

Grammatically, I read subsection (a) as further defining where a catcher has to be positioned, and the balk penalty applies to any fielder not legally positioned. It could have just as easily been written as part of the opening paragraph of rule 5.02 instead of a subsection.

Another way to read it is that the ump cannot put the ball into play until all fielders are where they should be. In that case a balk couldn't be called because the ball is not in play. After the ball is put in play fielder's can go wherever they want, but the catcher has to stay in the box till the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

An older version of this rule (formerly Rule 4 section 3) made no mention of the intentional walk, so one has to assume MLB is trying to better define the rule. I think it's muddied up even more.

Subsection (b) states the pitcher must take his legal pitching position, but since that is elaborated on later there is nothing more mentioned about a penalty, but we all know there is one even though it isn't stated here. And subsection (c) confirms players other than the pitcher and catcher may position themselves anywhere in fair territory. Again, no penalty is ascribed because it's already been addressed if they are not in fair territory.

Anyone who has read baseball rule books knows they are often poorly written/worded, often on purpose. But this is the only rule that comes to mind that so many people say has no consequence. If there's no consequence, why is it even mentioned? Is it really a rule then? A fielder can certainly gain an advantage when holding a runner on if they can straddle the line.

It can be debated forever, but until MLB writes the rule clearly it will never be decided 100%. Some organizations have attempted to get around it by defining "in fair territory" as having at least 1 foot in fair. Because of other rules even this comes up short (or can be seen as contradictory), but at least it mitigates arguments from coaches who have read the rules.