Intent of the Rule

[PeteBooth]

To say the least, there has been some heated discussions both on this Board and eTeamz concerning - INTENT of the mechanical Balk.

OK - Do not turn off but again I will refer to Football. When a defensive back interferes with a receiver, but the ball is deemed uncatchable - the interference is waved off - why? because the interference did not effect the play and to enforce would be a real injustice to the defense.

Now to the mechanical balk - Perhaps Papa C or Warren can dig out the archives as to when certain Mechanical balks were first introduced. Let's take a look at the latest - F1 in wind-up steps back with non-pivot foot. I'm sure before the rule was a rule that pitchers used this tactic to ACTUALLY deceive the runner, hence the need for the rule.

When do I call this mechanical balk - When IMO it is ACTUALLY TO DECEIEVE as opposed to F1 just forgetting.

How do we know the difference? We know the difference because (A) - Most of played the game, (B) Most of coached the Game and now we umpire the game and learn through experiences.

IMO, the Players should decide the game and not the Umpire.

Lets examine the following: r3 (tying or winning run), F1 hears from the dugout, "GO FROM THE STRETCH" and steps back with non-pivot foot. In our judgement r3 wasn't going anywhere and F1 made no attempt to deceive. In this particular instance I will IGNORE the Balk.

Why? - Because this is similiar to the Uncatchable Ball scenario in Football. The balk did not effect the outcome of the play. If Team A is going to Tie or win the Game - I say LET THEM EARN IT.

Now if R3 is darting off the base and is trying to steal home and F1 steps back (with non-pivot foot) and then makes a play, then we have a Balk call why? Because this time F1's actions did EFFECT the play.

To me knowing the Intenet of the rules and how to apply those rules in a given situation makes a good umpire. I'm not saying that we will not have to make some tough calls out there, but scoring the tying or winning run on a TECHNICALITY IMO is not what the game is all about.

Also, we all have our styles, and there is really no right or wrong answer here. For those that would call a Balk, the rule substantiates it, for those that don't - one needs to rely upon the intent of the rule.

There are also other rules, that fall into this category as well.


Pete Booth

[DDonnelly19]

I know people hate playing "What-if" games here, but Rich brought up a very good scenario...

R2, R3. Previous batter flied out and R2 had just tagged up and advanced from 1B. Pitcher in the windup, coach yells "Bubba, step off and appeal to 1B!" So the pitcher steps off with his free foot, and...

Balk or no balk?

Or we could modify the original scenario...

R3, coach yells at pitcher to go from the stretch, so the pitcher steps off with his free foot. No balk called. So while the pitcher is off the rubber, R3 is dancing off the base to draw the throw, and before the pitcher gets back on the rubber he fires a throw to 3B...

Are we supposed to "retroactively" call a balk, since the pitcher made a play after illegally disengaging the rubber?

My point is that Carl's advice seems to be too much of a blanket statement, whereas I can see this no-call being appropriate at a certain level and in a particular situation. I can see some people taking this advice too literally and making this no-call in an inappropriate situation such as the ones outlined above.

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jim Mills
[B]Pete:

I came down clearly on the "call the balk" side of the line. The reason is simple. Among knowledgeable company, to ignore it will cause far more trouble than it will prevent.

Jim thanks for your reply, but it seems to me that Baseball should start changing as with the other sports.

I pointed out the interference penalty in football. At one time, if the defensive back interfered with the receiver, the penalty was always enforced until they changed it to say if in the judgement of the referee, the ball was uncatchable, then the interference penalty is ignored.

Baseball is one of the few sports whose rules haven't changed much throughout the years, perhaps it's time. Personally I can't see enforcing a penalty in which no advantage is gained. Your right in the language of the rule, but perhaps it's time to change things.

You brought up another excellent situations that IMO should also be changed, like a batter bailing out on a pitch aimed at his head - The batter shouldn't be penalyzed if the ball happens to strike his bat.

A baseball umpire should be aforded the luxory of determining whether or not an infraction has any baring on the play and therefore, should be able to rule accordingly.

The Technical Balk rules reminds me of the 20 second rule for pitchers - again a rule that is hardly if ever called, but IT IS A RULE. Certain rules NONE OF US call, yet this one seems to generate plenty of interest.

It seems to me that baseball is TOO TECHNICAL and the rules need to be revisted. The problem is OBR was written for Professional Athletes and therefore, much of these discussions are mute when dealing with the PRO Game, but IS RELEVANT in the Amateur game.

I have been watching the PRO Game for a long time and have NEVER seen a pitcher from the wind-up step back with Free Foot, so therefore, this rule will probably NEVER be changed. However, I have seen this many times in the Amateur Game.

Kevin Brown makes $14 million a year, therefore, he should know the Balk rules - I'm not so sure Little Johnny who is playing the game for Fun should be held to the same standards.

One thing I would bet on - World Series , Kevin Brown on the mound for LA, Jeter the winning run on third - Pandomonium in Dodger Stadium - Kevin in the windup (before starting his pitching motion) steps back - free foot first - umpires call balk - Game Over -

Next Year the Rule just got changed.

Pete Booth

[BJ Moose]

Disclaimer:

I support each sides right to opinion as to their call or non call of this balk based on judgement.

Everyone knows my SIDE on this.

Now consider: The other side wants to consider INTENT... ok, fine....

Tie game, bottom of extra innings, R1, R3. tough sitch, pitcher bent over in stretch position, staring at catcher, doing that, "roll ball around in his hand behind his back thing". and (you guessed it)...the ball slips out of his hand and plops on the ground.

I KNOW for a fact was his intent was or wasn't.

Who on this planet, human or 4 legged, is not going to call this balk, game over go home??

NOTE: I just have the feeling that SOMEPEOPLE will try to argue they won't make this balk call. OK - > then let us know how a righteous protest committee would not uphold this protest?

[Jim Porter]

Moose,

Perhaps some have argued that the intent of the pitcher is the key in this scenario. I won't argue for that position because it is an opinion I have not held.

However, in response to your post, I will say that it is the intent of the rule, not the pitcher, which should be considered.

You point to the accidental ball drop as an example. The history of this rule tells us exactly why that is a balk, every single time. In the past, pitchers would fake accidentally dropping the ball to bring about a trick play to catch runners off-guard. Nonetheless, OBR 8.05(k) specifically states that a balk is to be called regardless of intent, whether accidental or intentional. That's why. No trick plays involving an "accidentally" dropped ball are allowed.

However, when a coach yells out, "Go from the stretch," and the pitcher steps off with the improper foot - what is the intent of that rule? It is there to keep the pitcher from illegally deceiving runners into believing he has begun his motion to pitch. But if everyone knows this pitcher is not beginning his motion, and they react accordingly, where is the balk?

The intent of the rule is clear. Our common sense and judgment should rule. That's why we're out there as impartial arbiters. That's why we get paid the big bucks - to make these tough decisions.

Some people believe we are beating a dead horse. Others believe this is about UT members versus non-UT members. I believe this is a hot topic for none of the above reasons.

It is a hot topic because it symbolizes the struggle we all face with with our own umpiring philosphies. This topic pits the black-and-white letter of the rules against spirit and intent, common sense, judgment, and discretion. It tests every umpire's boundary and draws a distinct line. And we are all finding out that our lines are in slightly different places.

For all you folks that have cried, "Foul," regarding this scenario when hearing from people like Carl Childress, Warren Willson, and myself - consider this: Has this topic made you think long and hard about your umpiring? Has it helped you define certain aspects of your job that you probably would not have defined otherwise? Has it made you go looking through the books and manuals at rules and parallel interpretations? If it has, then this thread has been wildly successful for you. And Carl, Warren, and myself have at least been successful at sparking the inspirations of the student-umpire inside you to research, learn, and grow on your own.

I'll say this has been a great topic.

[Jim Porter]

Jim,

I'm not much for this back and forth business. But I feel I must respond to your slight misrepresentation of my opinion.

You said, "Now, I think it's been determined on both sides of the aisle that this is a balk. The question has been, does one enforce it?"

That may have been decided on your side of the aisle, but not mine. And please stop fueling this idea that there are two sides. There are not. There are independent opinions. I align myself in this debate with no, "side".

A balk is a judgment call. While I agree that, under most circumstances, the improper act by the pitcher would be a balk, I do not agree in this instance. A balk is a judgment call. Say it with me, "A balk is a judgment call."

You created a new situation with your altered scenario that doesn't apply to the debate. We've been discussing a pitcher who disengages improperly, and now you're starting to talk about a pitcher who never even diengages. The two situations are quite different.

Next, you bring up yet another situation in which the coach tells his pitcher to go from the stretch, but he delivers anyway. Then you tell me that I've placed R1 at a huge disadvantage. How? The pitcher delivered legally! I didn't even have to make a balk judgment.

You also talk about consistency. I'm glad you brought that up. In my opinion, one of the reasons we are so inconsistent from one umpire to another, is because too many umpires are enforcing the black-and-white letter of the rules, rather than using discretion, judgment, common sense, and spirit and intent.

Young umpires tend to get a small amount of rules information, and they get all excited and run right out onto the field to start penalizing and enforcing. This causes headaches for the experienced umpires who are doing their part to uphold the traditions of the umpire as an impartial arbiter, assuring one team does not gain an advantage over the other not intended by the rules.

[duckump]

I must say this is one of the best threads I have read in a long time. Everyone has great points on intent and actual rule of the balk call, I'm not sure if I agree with a balk being a judgement call but it has me thinking that for the first time it is! I know when myself and many other officals call a 10 or 11 year old select game there are certain rules that are called more by the book than a 9 or 10 year old rec game and that is pretty much commen sense. The different scenarios listed make good points and I guess time and experience make the differance in how those games are called. With the season here in Texas almost a month away I look foward more good threads. Thanks to all.

[Bfair]

I glanced briefly over all posts reading none in great detail.

What I noticed was many looking at too much detail of original situation rather than looking at what is really addressed by both Pete Booth's original post and Carl's original article. This thread deals with philosophy, not individual situations you can develop. Your success will depend upon how well you can understand the philosophy and employ it in your game.

What is being acknowledged is: we either do overlook or should agree that certain technical infractions are overlooked based on the caliber of game and the significance of the infraction. The non-enforcement is not in accordance with the rules, but is, indeed, in accordance with the intent of the rule. Additionally, this is rightfully done for the sake of the contest at hand.

First, we are proper in acknowleding its existence. Denial will lead nowhere. Second, we know this could lead to inconsistency in officiating from one contest to another.

I contend that the success and progress of an umpire will be affected significantly by these decisions that are not taught or referenced in a rulebook. We all need to realize that. You must develop or mimic a sytem that, with common sense, leads to the consistency sought among officials for the level you call.

I agree with Pete's original post but also add there are times that despite the lack of apparent intent, infractions must be called. These instances occur when (1) advantage is gained for whatever reason, and (2) the infraction is so obvious to all that it is impossible for the official to overlook it.

Please note this philosophy differs significantly vs. just not having the guts to make the right, controversial call when it should be made. (an officiating flaw which, at times, some will attempt to justify thru this philosophy)

From your post, Pete, I would be proud to officiate with you. Carl, I commend you for publicly addressing an issue so vital to the proper performance of our responsibilities (which is to attempt to maintain fairness in the contest). Highlighting and discussing its existence is a major step forward, and this is an excellent place to discuss such issues.

Just my opinion,

[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.

[Bfair]

I stand with the no-callers on this provided your example of the no-call in inning 1 was not blatantly obvious.

First, I'm not worried if the coach or anyone wants to call a balk from the bench. Let them. I'm not involved until coach wants conference to discuss it (and prior to that the rabbit ears were in the hat). I don't know if it is good to admit, but I have had plenty of practice in handling situations (should I post back to myself and declare that a slam?). I don't make my decisions on fear of the argument. I make decision on fairness as to intent of rule and level of play, and on what I can legitimately use to support my call if questioned. In this scenerio (no attempts on runners, no intent, no advantage gained, was not blatantly obvious) and coach subsequently questions why no balk, I respond, "coach, I didn't see it as you did. There was no obvious play occurring and perhaps he came off with wrong foot, I wasn't certain. I don't score runs if I am not certain. I think if I am not certain the runs should be scored by the teams, not the officials". Let him say what he wants (within reason), then progress. You have not said he's wrong, you have stated a well accepted position, and declared your uncertainty. Now it's time to play.

If you make mistake of arguing that you are not calling the balk because it's not in the INTENT of the rule, you'll be arguing til the new edition is out that changes the rule.

Now, I have stated how I would handle the situation. It doesn't bring the the ifs, ands, and buts---as highlighted Jim Mills' post. To refute main argument of ifs with Jim, I don't think the batter should relax at the plate thinking F! is not delivering. I say that as an ex-player and not as an official.

Just my opinion,

(added note)---the argument of uncertainty is legitimate explanation that is solid justification for many no-call situations. Consistency in explanation and procedure!!!

[Edited by Bfair on Jan 9th, 2001 at 12:35 PM]

[Jim Porter]

Jim, Dave, etc.,

Let's first get this, "Is it a balk or not a balk?" question out of the way.

Please allow me to quote the great Bill Klem, inarguably the father of modern umpiring. Bill Klem said, "It ain't nothin' 'til I call it." He was right. If we don't call it a balk, it ain't a balk. "Semantics," you might argue. "Truth," is what I would say.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face about the NAPBL Manual, about the OBR, Jim Evans's Annotated, and what all the books and manuals say about a pitcher who improperly disengages. But what those books fail to mention is exactly when our judgment, discretion, and common sense are required.

If you followed every single letter in every single official or authoritative source and you penalize and enforce every chance you get, you might consider yourself a good baseball umpire. Unfortunately, you will be the only one considering yourself that way. (translation: You won't be moving up very quickly, and don't expect post-season assignments.)

I have experienced quite the opposite of what Dave Hensley said he has experienced. At levels above Little League, umpires here tend to have too much rules knowledge and not enough umpiring sense. It comes from having too much information before the experience.

This happened with an umpire I worked with last year. Perhaps this will bring up a new scenario for debate. The pitcher was in the stretch position. He received his signs. The third base coach was yelling at his batter, "Jason, step out and get your signs. Jason! Step out!"

Well, Jason stepped out with one foot and begun taking his signs. The pitcher did not disengage from the rubber. Instead, he stood up and relaxed. He reached in his glove with his pitching hand to toy with the ball, and then reached up to adjust his glasses. Yep, this pitcher's hands came together and then parted.

"Balk!" called the lone voice from my partner. I left my mask on hoping that no one could see my face.

This umpire did not recieve any post-season assignments last year beyond 9 & 10 year-old Little League All-Stars at the local level. Certainly this one call didn't do all that, but it was symptomatic of his inexperience.

The whole world knew what was going on. The pitcher, even though still engaged, was, for all intents and purposes, disengaged. The runner wasn't leading, the batter was out of the box, and no one expected this balk call.

So what manual or rulebook says that all a pitcher has to do is, "relax," while engaged and he will be considered to be disengaged? None. But all the experienced, veteran umpires in my area would not call a balk on the above pitcher. They, too, would consider him as disengaged. Unless the pitcher had attempted some sort of trick play, or pick-off attempt, he simply didn't balk. It ain't a balk 'cause no one would've called it.

So, I cannot and will not ever be able to control how you call your games on your fields. I can, however, offer my advice that you think long and hard about how to use your discretion, judgment, and common sense. Your umpiring future depends upon it.

[Jim Porter]

Dave,

What I meant by my story was that OUR young umpires look so hard for balk infractions that they lose the big picture, even forgetting other rules. That's how my area differs from your area. You say your young umpires don't even look for balks. Ours look for them when they aren't even there.

[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?

[PeteBooth]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DDonnelly19
[B]Jim:

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

The reason I started this whole thing in the first place - is What is the Intent of the rules? - I am not an Historian, but I suppose that before there was no such thing as a Balk - the game became a Joke with runners on base, so the rulemakers felt the need to put in some rules so that a runner would know when F1 is throwing home as opposed to when F1 can make a proper pickoff - In other words - balance it out a little.

This I can understand. Now comes along the Mechanical Balks - This area IMO is where the rule needs to be amended at least in Amateur Ball. By amending the rule, I mean the umpire should be able to use his / her sound judgement (regarding Mechanical Balks) in determining whether or not to call the infraction.

This thread already cited one of those instances in which the umpire should use discretion in whether to call the infraction or not. Are baseball umpires not held to the same standards as our Fellow officials in Football? I say yes, yet in Football, the referee is allowed to wave off certain penalties if he feels the infraction didn't effect the play - Why shouldn't a baseball umpire be afforded the same luxury?

An umpire should be able to use his / her sound judgement in determining whether a REAL BALK was committed.

Why? There are other rules such as interference in which our judgement is used to determine if we should record 1 outs or 2 Outs. If IN OUR JUDGEMENT, the interference was intentional we could call 2 outs on the play. So when dealing with interference our judgement is relyed upon to determine if an act was intentional or not, why not with the Balk Call?

You mentioned 13 yr. olds - I guess we all have our opinions - but personally I do not like Balk-a-Thons. This is similiar to when calling Balls / Strikes in the "Rugrat" Division - If one doesn't have a liberal zone - Walk-a-Thons. Let the kids play.


I believe in past threads, we mentioned those Rules which we NEVER call such as the 20 second rule for pitchers, Strict Uniform Codes, etc. In other words these are referred to as "NIT-PICKEN" rules which one hardly if ever calls.

To me these mechanical balks fall into the same category.
When everyone in the Park knows that F1 was merely stepping back and taking instructions from his coach - That is not a Balk - At Least IMO that was not the INTENET OF THE RULE.

The Intent of the Step-Back (free foot) Balk was so that F1 could not "pull a fast one", and I believe most of the proponents who would NOT CALL A BALK on the scenario above - WOULD CALL A BALK IN A HEARTBEAT if F1 was trying to pull a fast one.

This makes for good discussion, as we all have our opinions on any given matter.

Pete Booth

[Bfair]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

At every level I umpire, kids to amateur adult, I generally call more balks than my partners. But at the same time, I am 100% certain when I call a balk, that it is a clear, black-letter balk that should be called. The moral of this story is that most amateur umpires are not calling balks that they should call. And that's where the inconsistency and confusion that Jim Porter mentioned is coming from.

Dave, some umps may call more balks than other umps just because of their ability to recognize the balk itself when it occurs. I think this thread is beyond that though. It agrees the balk has occurred, but now looks at intent, damage, etc.

That fact that you call more balks could be interpreted several ways: you pick boogers, you recognize them better, you call black/white, etc.

I think the video is named "See a Balk, Know a Balk"
Perhaps its time for the sequel, "See a Balk, Know a Balk, Call a Balk ??? "

BTW, I must credit Jim Porter to what I feel is one of the best posts I have seen in months. It is his post in this thread made 1/8 @ 1:49 to Moose. This summarizes an important position. I feel this should not go unrecognized.

Just my opinion,