Intent of the Rule

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
I'm usually a liberal, but on this issue I think I lean more towards the strict constructionists. The rules, particularly as amplified in the NAPBL, are black letter. There is just as little doubt about intent to deceive when a pitcher drops the ball while on the rubber, as when he steps off with the wrong foot after being told to change positions by his coach. If we call the one, we should call the other. In FED ball, the shoulder feint towards 1B *before* coming set, the stop above the chin - those are "ticky-tack" balks that many, many umpires hate and even refuse to call. I'm pretty sure even the proponents of the no-call on the balk under discussion would still argue for enforcement of these other technical, no-intent-to-deceive balks.

I think one could construct situations in which those FED rules were "violated", but which I would not call balks.

View Carl's play as one that demonstrates you should never say never (or, if you say always, you'll always be wrong). Under a very specific set of circumstances and actions, stepping off the rubber with the non-pivot foot, turning the shoulders to first (FED), dropping the ball, etc. should not be balks, IMHO. It's likely that any of them happen once per season at the most.