Appeal/Balk Called (OBR)

[teacherspit]

GB,
How does one balk while making an appeal?

[Atl Blue]

I'm not GB, but there are PLENTY of ways:

-disengaging with the free foot first
-separating his hands before stepping off the rubber
-making a motion which simulates the start of his pitching motion, then steping off the rubber
-drops the ball before disengaging

I'm sure there are others, this is just an example.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by teacherspit
"No, you are just horribly misguided.

You can ALWAYS appeal from the rubber - you do not have to disengage, regardless if the base is occupied or unoccupied. You NEVER have to verbalize an appeal attempt - it only has to be an unmistakable act in the judgment of the umpire."

I believe that one has to be able to dissimilate between an appeal and a pickoff. It would be wrong to assume something.
If a pitcher informs you that he is appealing so and so at what base. Yeah now you know. I say he needs to step off. One because the ball is still alive the runners can advance. Two there is a rule against throwing to an unoccupied base while toeing the rubber.

GB you contradict yourself. If the defense doesn't verbalize their intention of making an appeal and the pitcher throws to an occupied base while in contact with the rubber, then how do you whether it was a pickoff attempt or not? You can't.
(snip)

Why are you writing this to me? I didn't post whatever the hell you are responding to. Please keep up with the thread and respond to the appropriate party.

Thank you for your kind attention.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by teacherspit
GB,
How does one balk while making an appeal?

Again, why are you addressing me about this? What did I do to get your undivided attention? Please try to keep up with the thread.

By the way, "teacherspit"...are you misspelling "teacherspet", or are you really describing yourself as some bodily fluid released by an educator?

[Carl Childress]

Teacherspit wrote: "When the pitcher stepped off the back of the rubber he becomes a fielder. The balk is no longer an option." Garth Benham replied: "...but still, by rule, he is referred to as a pitcher."

Of course, as we all know, teacherspit is right. The OBR is quite clear and unambiguous: "If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher's plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder.... (8.01e) Benham says F1 is still "referred to as a pitcher." That's not what the OBR says.

It's not an important point in terms of the thread. Rich Fronheiser has carefully answered those questions:

(1) The pitcher may throw from the rubber to an unoccupied base if it's for the purpose of making an appeal.

(2) The defense does not have to announce the appeal in advance.

(3) The umpire who called the balk, as described in the original thread, was simply wrong.

But Mr. Benham, for whatever reason, took a poster to task for stating a fact. It's important that Forum Big Dogs don't dismiss other posters without being absolutely sure of their position. The OBR says the pitcher who legally steps off the rubber becomes an infielder. I don't think that leaves much wiggle room.

What do you guys think?

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by teacherspit
I believe that one has to be able to dissimilate between an appeal and a pickoff. It would be wrong to assume something.
If a pitcher informs you that he is appealing so and so at what base. Yeah now you know. I say he needs to step off. One because the ball is still alive the runners can advance. Two there is a rule against throwing to an unoccupied base while toeing the rubber.

I, too, am now curious about your handle, 'cause I hope [I used to assume, but you are right, it would be wrong] you're not a teacher. ??"dissimulate between"??

YOU may say "he needs to step off", but there is no rule which requires him to do so; it is illegal for him to throw to an unoccupied base except to make a play - an appeal is a play for the purposes of this rule.

Originally posted by teacherspit
After the game I was approached by a fan. He thanked me . . . for calling a trip to the mound on his son's coach from his dugout. They lost the game. But he was appreciative that an ump would have the "Balls to make those calls." For the record I missed some too!
But I ain't telling them!!

Are you saying you charged a trip when the coach never left the dugout? I think that may be one of the ones you "missed"!


[Edited by cbfoulds on Jul 25th, 2004 at 12:41 AM]

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Teacherspit wrote: "When the pitcher stepped off the back of the rubber he becomes a fielder. The balk is no longer an option." Garth Benham replied: "...but still, by rule, he is referred to as a pitcher."

Of course, as we all know, teacherspit is right. The OBR is quite clear and unambiguous: "If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher's plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder.... (8.01e) Benham says F1 is still "referred to as a pitcher." That's not what the OBR says.

It's not an important point in terms of the thread. Rich Fronheiser has carefully answered those questions:

(1) The pitcher may throw from the rubber to an unoccupied base if it's for the purpose of making an appeal.

(2) The defense does not have to announce the appeal in advance.

(3) The umpire who called the balk, as described in the original thread, was simply wrong.

But Mr. Benham, for whatever reason, took a poster to task for stating a fact. It's important that Forum Big Dogs don't dismiss other posters without being absolutely sure of their position. The OBR says the pitcher who legally steps off the rubber becomes an infielder. I don't think that leaves much wiggle room.

What do you guys think?

I think that you left off the most important part. Let's complete the sentence:

"...he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder."

Now while you are much older and have far experience presenting rule interpretions as you see them, as is taught at most pro clinics I've attended that 8.01 (e) references considering the pitcher an infielder for the SPECIFIC reason included...a wild throw.

It does not preclude him from being considered a pitcher for other reasons:

8.05 (g) (if there is a runner or runners, it is a balk when) the pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitchers plate.

So, Carl, following your logic, a pitcher steps off and is no longer a pitcher. Right? He then simulates his pitching delivery. Balk? Can't be according to you. He's not a pitcher anymore. He's a fielder and fielder's can;t balk.

Nonsense. It's a balk.

Except for the specific consideration contained in 8.01 (e) of a wild throw, the pitcher is still a pitcher.





[Edited by GarthB on Jul 25th, 2004 at 01:56 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Mr. Benham:

Earlier you accused someone of not reading your post carefully. I know how you feel.

I thought I had narrowed my focus to one specific point; that is, you, an acknowledged Big Dog, had not quoted the OBR correctly.

Since you insist, I’m not adverse to extending my remarks.

You go to lengths to prove a pitcher off the rubber is still a pitcher and can balk: "[It’s a balk if] the pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is NOT touching the pitcher's plate; and ... without having the ball, stands on, OR ASTRIDE the pitcher's plate...." I agree.

But, Garth, he can’t do those two things ON the rubber either. So his being OFF the rubber is not the controlling factor, right? In those two instances ONLY he is an infielder pretending to be a pitcher, and that’s not legal.

In the exhilaration of your response to me, you overreached. I said 8.01(e) says the pitcher becomes an infielder. You said I had omitted the most important part, i.e., he’s an infielder for purposes of awarding bases on an overthrow. You write: "Except for the specific consideration contained in 8.01 (e) of a wild throw, the pitcher is still a pitcher."

You didn’t mean that.

You’ll agree that off the rubber he may feint a throw to first.
You’ll agree that off the rubber he may throw to a base without first stepping directly toward that base.
You’ll agree that off the rubber if he drops the ball, it is not a balk or even a pitch.

Earlier in the thread, you implied as much: “There are other rules under section 8.05 that allow him to behave similarly to a fielder if he properly disengages, but still, by rule, he is referred to as a pitcher.” But you weren’t responding to Carl Childress then.

In one of your messages to teacherspit, you also argued: "By the rule he IS the pitcher, even off the rubber...."

Once and for all, let's say it right: By RULE (black letter law), he is an infielder. By CONVENTION (ease of designation) he is a pitcher. As a “pitcher” (ease of designation) off the rubber, he may do anything any other infielder may do. But he may not pretend to be a pitcher.

You have the basics down cold. But when you (apparently) hurry your responses, you drift in and out of correctness.

If you had taken your time, you might not have felt the need to try to embarrass a registered user over his choice of member ID. We all remember your post: “teacherspit,” you wrote, "Are you misspelling ‘teacherspet,’ or are you really describing yourself as some bodily fluid released by an educator?"

I’m certain you wish you had not said that.

Remember, "spit" is also a skewer. Perhaps where he teaches, he sometimes feels he's on one. If so, I'm certain that feeling has intensified after the going over you gave him.

[tornado]

"Once and for all, let's say it right: By RULE (black letter law), he is an infielder. By CONVENTION (ease of designation) he is a pitcher. As a “pitcher” (ease of designation) off the rubber, he may do anything any other infielder may do. But he may not pretend to be a pitcher."

What if...
After a double with runners on and the infielders have covered their bases and the pitcher backed up a base, f1 goes to third base & f5 goes to the mound. He then pretends to be the pitcher, goes into a set off the rubber & somehow picks off a runner. What's the call?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by tornado
"Once and for all, let's say it right: By RULE (black letter law), he is an infielder. By CONVENTION (ease of designation) he is a pitcher. As a “pitcher” (ease of designation) off the rubber, he may do anything any other infielder may do. But he may not pretend to be a pitcher."

What if...
After a double with runners on and the infielders have covered their bases and the pitcher backed up a base, f1 goes to third base & f5 goes to the mound. He then pretends to be the pitcher, goes into a set off the rubber & somehow picks off a runner. What's the call?

Tornado:

That's an easy one, right? The "infielder" cannot pretend to be a pitcher off the rubber. Coming to a stop is a motion habitually connected with a pitcher in the set position. Balk!

Now, if F5 steps onto the rubber, since the ball is alive, he IS now the pitcher: an unannounced substitute. When he picks off the runner at third, if it's the third out, he doesn't have to pitch to a batter. If it's not, he must stay on the mound until one batter completes his at bat.

It's an interesting play but only if F5 steps onto the rubber.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Jul 25th, 2004 at 09:33 AM]

[GarthB]

Carl:

I am constantly amazed at how you can, over the distance of time, change which sides of an issue you choose to argue, and your ability to feel superior on both sides.

I really don't care if you have tried to narrow your focus on anything. Your focus was never what I was concerned with when I was posting. If you choose to interrupt a thread you should keep tabs on what the parties are saying, that is, if you wish your interruption to be considered particpation. Despite being an empoyee of Officiating.com, you don't set the rules to posting.

Now then, since you insist on selling your version of events let's correct a few things.

1. I have never proclaimed myself a "big dog." I am just a competent umpire fomr the sticks of Spokane who has had the good fortune over time to get some good assignments and enjoy my experiences in baseball. I'll leave the self promotion of "big dog" to others.

2. Here is how my participation in this thread began: Someone by the name of woolnojg wrote:

"When diengaged (sic) from the rubber, pitcher is a fielder."

to which I replied:

"My point: You have to be careful about making a universal statement that a pitcher is a fielder when he is off the rubber. Sometimes he is treated LIKE a fielder...for base awards, for example. There are other rules under section 8.05 that allow him to behave similarly to a fielder if he properly disengages, but still, by rule, he is referred to as a pitcher."

Now then, see anything there about 8.01 (e)? I don't, and I didn't write my response thinking that we were so narrowly focused. I was responding to "when disengaged..." a very broad statement and made a very broad reply.


Then "teacherspit" (sic?) jumped in with:

"GB, When the pitcher steps off the back of the rubber. He is not under the penalty of balking. Unless he throws the ball to a fielder. Then without the ball strides the rubber or toes the rubber. Then he has balked."

Again, a broad statement, not invoking 8.01 (e) and not interpreted that narrowly by me, or anyone else, I believe until you arrived.

My response that post was again, to point out that this was not universally true and gave examples of a pitcher balking while disengaged from the rubber.

Then "teacherspit" apparently not keeping up with who said what started asking me questions based on posts of others, Rich's, primarily, I believe; and confused, I began to take my leave.

Then, you, chossing to create a narrow focus out of what had been a general statement decided to find that hatchet you buried someplace and once again twisted things to make them appear other that what was intended by attempting to force everyone to accept your narrow focus of a discussion that did not involve you. I, stubborn as ever, refused to accept your intervention, as I continue to do.

As Jim Evans points out, 8.01 (e) was not codified until 1950 and was done so to specifically provide a two base penalty for a wild throw out of play by "the pitcher when he was 'off the rubber.'”

I have no problem with anything I have posted. I have not denied the exact wording of 8.01 (e). This discussion, as a reading of it's evolution indicates, was not focused just on 8.01 (e) until you chimed in and by error, I responded. The thread of my particiation has always been that there are times when a pitcher may be disengaged from the rubber and the rules still refer to him as the pitcher.

In another thread at this site I see you talking about a pitcher taking signs off the rubber. There is one such instance. The rule doesn't refer to him as the fielder formerly known as the pitcher taking signs off the rubber, now does it?

I accept your superior wordsmithing and ability to morph from a common sense umpire to a black and white umpire and back again when it suits your arguments. I will not, and I accept the fact that I cannot compete with you in this kind of debate.

In the future, I will attempt to be much more careful with what I post and, although I did include clarifiers in this thread, I will attempt to utilize much clearer clarifiers to avoid a battle of nits.

Have a good day, and of course, the last word.

P.S. You shouldn't make assumptions about what I wish and didn't wish I have said.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 25th, 2004 at 02:51 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by GarthB
Carl: [much snipped] Have a good day, and of course, the last word.

P.S. You shouldn't make assumptions about what I wished and didn't wish I have said.

[Edited by GarthB on Jul 25th, 2004 at 02:35 PM]

All right, so you're not sorry you attacked a registered user's "handle." I'm sorry about that.

But as to the subject at hand, I'll let your mini-novel remind everyone of my last word.