Intent of the Rule

[DDonnelly19]

Jim:

Which do you think is better advice for younger umpires -- "see a balk, call a balk", or don't call them at all?

I fell into the former catagory when I was learning. I called every balk at every level, no matter how technical. I wanted to be the "master" of the balk rule. At every rules clinic, people moaned and groaned and chuckled when I raised my hand during the section on balks. I was ridiculed by my peers, and sometimes by my supervisors, for my obsession with the call.

My brother-in-law fell into the latter catagory. "Balks just kill the flow of the game," he'd say. Over 10 years of partnering up with him I think he's called only 5% off all the balks. His reasoning was like most others in my association, and I'm not sure if they had mastered the "art", or perhaps they haven't even bothered to learn the "science".

Well, after 13 years of experiences, of balking in winning runs, making 10-year old pitchers cry after 4 consecutive balk calls, I feel that I have both grasped the "art" and the "science" of the balk call; I know a balk when it happens, but I also feel I know when it's appropriate not to call one. Because I became comfortable calling a balk (correctly) when I saw it, I learned the "science"; because of experiences calling technical balks with younger kids, during blowouts when the call wasn't appropriate, and realizing "accepted interpretations" not printed in the black-and-white, I learned the "art". Even today I still think my brother-in-law, along with many others I've worked with, rely on me to make the call because they're indecisive.

Agree or disagree?