Balk with BOT - Question from Germany

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by greymule
I don't understand that one, Warren. The way I see it, with the base on balls causing the advance of R1 to 2B and BR to 1B, the balk is wiped away. It didn't happen. The advance of R1 to 2B is a legal advance caused by the walk, not the balk. Now, with BR on 1B having completed his at-bat, the appeal is a separate, later event.

If we follow the logic that way, greymule, then when the appeal is upheld R1 should be returned to 1st base under 6.07(b.2). Net effect is Defensive Errors=2, Offensive Errors=1 and Defense profits with 1 out AND R1 returned to 1st base. That's the way the appeal rule is written.

By my logic EITHER R1 makes it to 2nd on the walk - appeal for BOT denied, balk ignored - OR R1 makes it to 2nd on the balk - appeal for BOT upheld, balk enforced [see Note following 6.07(b.2)]. According to 8.05 Penalty the balk is ignored only if BOTH the batter and R1 advance on the play. The batter did NOT advance on the play, being called out on appeal for allowing an improper batter to complete his turn at bat. Enforce the balk.

The point is that the BOT appeal under 6.07(a) is still a part of the action that results from the base on balls. Until that appeal is either denied or upheld you can't declare that all runners advanced on the play. That is not the same as a missed base appeal at 1st, where the batter-runner is considered to have advanced for the purpose of the rule. In that case the balance is Defensive errors=1(the balk) and Offensive errors=2 (missed base AND BOT). The balance is rightly with the offense in that case.

I try to enforce the rules in a way that ensures neither side gains an advantage not intended under the rules. I don't think the rule makers intended for the defense to commit two errors and gain an out with no advance as the result.

Hope this helps

Cheers