A fellow ump made this call and asked me for my opinion: R1, R2, less than 2 outs. R2 advances to third on a fly out. The pitcher then toes the rubber, steps off and throws to second to appeal that R2 left before the catch. The ump called a balk rationalizing that the pitcher was throwing to an unoccupied base. He defended his call by saying that the pitcher nor anyone else on the defense indicated their intentions until after he called the balk. Intuitively I don't think the ump was right. I could have sworn there was some language in OBR about the defense's actions being "unmistakeable" as to their intentions, but I can't find it right now.

Paul

Let's see...
Pitcher has posession of the ball and engages the rubber.
Pitcher legally disengages the rubber and tosses ball to 2nd for an appeal.
When diengaged from the rubber, pitcher is a fielder.
Only pitchers can balk.
No balk. Live ball.

See the last comment to 7.10

Not a balk if he legally disengaged. I have never seen an appeal that I was not expecting, either because I saw the runner miss the base, or because the coaches or other players were calling it. If he steps off legally what is the rational for calling a balk, regardless of whether the intention was clear?

Because he threw to an unoccupied base.

If he steps off the rubber legally he can only be accused of delaying the game.

But he wasn't a "pitcher, while touching his plate" as required by 8.05(d)

And regardless, even if he was touching the plate, it was for the specific purpose of making an appeal, which is not a balk.

Maybe I should read threads from the beginning before I participate. :)

Is it relevant that the defense did not announce their intentions? My ump friend claimed the actions were not "unmistakable" to him. (I am not going to try and make excuses for him, I'm just asking for a face-value answer.)

Why in the world would they be throwing to second right after a tag play there <i>except</i> to appeal? Did he offer a theory on that?

Not relevant. Why else would the pitcher throw to second and the fielder step on the base? You don't have to "announce" an appeal. If there's a line drive to second and the ball is thrown to first to double up R1, do they "announce" that appeal?

--Rich

Careful there. This is not completely true:

Example: OBR 8.05 (g) (If there is a runner or runners on basem it is a balk when-)

The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is NOT touching the pitcher's plate.

AND

8.05 (i) The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on, OR ASTRIDE the pitcher's plate, or WHILE OFF THE PLATE, feints a pitch.

OK, OK.
Your example ahs him imitating a pitcher, which causes the balk.

I have never had an appeal play where I was not expecting it, either because I saw the runner miss the base or because I heard someone talking about making an appeal, such as coaches or other players hollering instructions. Often, the advice is wrong, but there is no mistake about what is going on. If I ever get surprised by the appeal, I will signal safe and be done with it (assuming it is my call to make).

Fielder
 

If I read everything correct it is not a balk.
When the pitcher stepped off the back of the rubber he becomes a fielder. The balk is no longer an option.

I would ration that the pitcher was stepping off the rubber, especially after at least one runner was on base, and throw to an unoccupied base after an offensive play, that the defensive team was making an appeal.
Now if I am not sure I would asked the pitcher what he was doing.
If he is unable and not willing to tell me then I would declare a dead ball and call a ball on the batter. Or I would not allow the appear. Illegal appear.

But under no circumstances would I ever call a balk unless it qualified by the parameters set in the rules of pitching.
If the pitcher had just wheeled and throw back to second without first stepping back off the rubber, then indeed that is a balk because the PITCHER is throwing to an unoccupied base.

If the pitcher had come to a set position and threw to third without stepping back off the rubber, then that is an attempt to pick off the runner. Under no circumstances can a pitcher as a pitcher ever throw to a base to make an appeal.

He must first put the ball in play by toeing the rubber with ball in hand and batter in the box. Them step off the rubber to become a fielder.
Then he can throw to any base he wants to for an appeal. If they miss the thrown ball then the appeal for that base for a certain runner can not be reappealed.
The ball is still alive and the runners may advance at their own risk.

If a pitcher balks when making an appeal, such act shall be a play. An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal. Time is not out when an appeal is being made.

[Edited by teacherspit on Jul 20th, 2004 at 03:20 AM]

Apparently you neither read my post fully or the rule. He is not "imitating" a pitcher. By the rule he IS the pitcher, even off the rubber, and he is doing something against the balk rules.

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.

<b>"When the pitcher stepped off the back of the rubber he becomes a fielder."</b>

No, he is still a pitcher. He is just allowed to do things off the rubber that he is not allowed to do on the rubber.

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.

Did you not understand what I was saying about a pitcher wheeling and throwing to an unoccupied base being a balk. Or throwing to an occupied base with intention of appealing without first stepping off the back of the rubber. It cannot be interpeted other than a pickoff play. Because is the only time a pitcher can throw to an occupied base while touching the rubber.
That is clear and simple.

I'm sorry if you didn't understand my post. I was simply saying that one should be careful about making a universal statement that a pitcher "becomes" a fielder when he is not on the rubber. There are many situations to prove this untrue.

A PITCHER does <B>NOT</b> have to disengage the rubber to make a legal appeal! Where in the world did THAT come from? It is perfectly legal for a pitcher to step directly to and throw to a base while still in contact with the rubber.

The reason pitchers step off is that there is MUCH more chance of balking if he does not step off first. But it is NOT required. Once the ball is live, he can step right to the base and throw without disengaging first.

And a throw to 2B for the purpose of an appeal IS making a play, a specific exception mentioned in the rules which would allow the pitcher to throw to an unoccupied base.

In the original scenario, this was a terrible call. It was legal if he disengaged first, and as long as he turned, stepped and threw without doing anything with his hands to commit to a pitch, it was legal if he did not disengage first.

More rule book umps that know what the rule says and have NO idea of how to apply it on the field!

I was glad to read your first comment above. It was bothering me since I first read that claim.

Your second comment is now bothering me though. You emphasize that the throw for the purpose of an appeal is a "play." It what way do you mean this in light of the language used in 7.10, "An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play."?

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.

Also, you cannot do "anything" after disengaging.

PLAY: R3, F1 in the windup position. F1 disengages with his pivot foot, then in the same motion raises his arms above his head and makes it look like he's going to deliver to the plate. In the middle of this, he stops, wheels to third and picks off R3.

RULING: Balk. F1 made a motion associated with a pitch.

Disengaging makes the pitcher a fielder for the purpose of awarding bases if a ball is thrown to DBT. But there are still balks that can happen even with the pitcher disengaged.

<I>Your second comment is now bothering me though. You emphasize that the throw for the purpose of an appeal is a "play." It what way do you mean this in light of the language used in 7.10, "An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play."?</i>

Ah, yes, just one of the confusions of the OBR!

For the purposes of allowing other appeals (7.10), an appeal is not a "play". For the purposes of satisfying the requirements of the balk rule (8.05d), an appeal IS a "play".

At the end of OBR 8.05, it states, "With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base." What is this in regards to? I assume this applies to the case when the pitcher is "making a play" as stated in 8.05d, but why isn't this language repeated in this note? I also assume this would apply more for a left handed pitcher?

1. The OBR contains many editing errors. Yes this pertains to making a play.
2. No differentiation is made between RHP and LHP.

It's in regards to turning past first and throwing to second.

Without the note, some umpires would consider the turn past first to be a motion (and, thus, a feint) to first, and call a balk.

"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.

I saw an appeal in Wrigley last week. The pitcher toed the rubber, stepped off the back and threw to third. Now if the pros do it, why in the world would the leaguers do it? Hell they know more than the pros!

And as far as I saying that when the pitcher steps off the rubber he becomes a fielder. I know that you know what I mean. Come on now, is it going to be that technical here? Especially between umps. You know as well as I do that there are unwritten rules between umps that cover this great game.

2-2 count on the batter and he squares and pulls back on a real close pitch, good by!

How about, "well that was a catchers' ball." You true veteran umps know what I am talking about. I reward my catchers. They know it and things get done smoothly. No arguing from the pitcher or coaches on stikes and balls. Well maybe a little but the catcher settles things down.
Now I know that there is not a rule that says the ump takes care of his catchers.

I called an obstruction call last night during a Kentucky State Babe Ruth game between two teams that have never seen me in their lives. It was late in a 2-0 game. The BR was throw out at second. Everyone was cheering and screaming. I called time and announced Obstruction First Baseman. The Defensive team didn't even question it. The defensive fans didn't even yell at me. Why because it was the right call, maybe, but I would to think that because of my and the field ump's professionalism displayed during the game had a lot to do with it. The finale was 2-1. Great game!

Knowing the rules is not the only thing a makes a good ump. In my opinion it's having a professional attitude, a fairness, a consistent stike zone and being approachable by all. Also, and this is probally the greatest reason of all, teamwork among the umps on the field. It will sale anything.

After the game I was approached by a fan. He thanked me for calling that obstruction, and then 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!!

You can tell becasue the fielder will touch the base and likely look at the umpire to see what he calls.

He never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never, never is required to step off to make an appeal. Read the fricking book -- it is not a balk for throwing to an unoccupied base when there's an appeal.

Stop being such an OOO and try to find some common sense in umpiring.

OK
I thought that I was using commonsense.

GB,
How does one balk while making an appeal?

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.

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.

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?

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 <i>thereby becomes an infielder....</i> (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 <i>becomes an infielder</i>. I don't think that leaves much wiggle room.

What do you guys think?

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.


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]

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]

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 <i>infielder</i> 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 <i>becomes</I> 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.

"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]

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:

<i>"When diengaged (sic) from the rubber, pitcher is a fielder."</i>

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:

<i>"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."</i>

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 <b>"the pitcher when he was 'off the rubber.'”</b>

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]

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.