illegal pitch?

[Atl Blue]

I don't think it is that extreme to warn the pitcher.

I agree, I meant the ejection part is extreme. I think warning him to knock it off (assuming there is not a legitimate problem) is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I would probably let the first one go. But if he does it again, a warning is definitely in line.

[Tim C]

Try to help . . . I will live with it.

It was determined BY BRAD RUMBLE, which became an accepted interprretation of FED, that it is a BALK.

Luke, I don't write the rules.

"He" determined it a balk NOT an illegal pitch.

Tee

[Atl Blue]

Tee:

I did not see the ruling (which just happens to be insane!).

I am ASKING, not accusing: Are you certain Rumble did not say this was an "illegal pitch" with no runners? By definition, you know as well as I that there can be no balk without runners.

If it is an illegal pitch, the penalty is a ball added to the batter's count.

If it is a balk, the penalty is the runners advance one base; there is no ball added to the count on a balk. But do you see our problem?

WE HAVE NO RUNNERS!

No runners, no penalty.

So we are back to: With no runners, this is nothing.

Added in edit:

From the 2004 FED case book:

6.1.2 SITUATION G: From the windup position, F1 steps onto the pitcher's plate with both hands together. As he moves his non-pivot leg behind the pitcher's plate, he completely stops his motion.
RULING: This would be a balk if there were any runners on base.

If Rumble once called this stopping of a motion a balk with no one on base, his interp has since been overruled.

[Edited by Atl Blue on Jul 22nd, 2004 at 09:49 AM]

[Tim C]

Brad explained that since the "start and stop windup" could not be considered a "quick return pitch" the only place it would fit is under "Balk".

He ruled that it would be a balk and a ball on the batter.

Don't attack me on HIS ruling. While it may not make sense to us it is simply a ruling that FED placed as official through the newsletter.

IT HAS NOT BEEN OVERRULED, ignored yes, overruled no.

Now a personal comment:

Under OBR the "start and stop wind-up" is considered a "nuttin'".

An umpire that would even warn a pitcher if he did it more than once is coming very close to being OOO.

Tee

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Tim C
Try to help . . . I will live with it.

It was determined BY BRAD RUMBLE, which became an accepted interprretation of FED, that it is a BALK.

Luke, I don't write the rules.

"He" determined it a balk NOT an illegal pitch.

Tee

You are right, Tee. I remember the ensuing controversy.

To the others: Tee has made an accurate historical observation. You may not agree with the ruling Rumble made, and I certainly hope you don't, but none the less, it WAS made.

As an additional note, when veteran posters use the term "FEDlandia" in their posts, it normally signals something that FED has done that is beyond comprehension by mere mortals. This is one such case.

[Atl Blue]

First, I am not attacking, just asking. I understand, you are the messenger, not the interpreter. Garth says your historical perspective is accurate, OK, now two of you remember this ruling.

Call it IGNORED or OVERRULED, the 2004 case play pretty much shows that Rumble was wrong, and that by today's interpretation, his ruling is no longer "in effect". The case play specifically says it is a balk "with runners on base".

And if Rumble was calling a balk AND adding a ball, now he was just making up rules. There is no ball added to the count on a balk!

This was beyond FEDlandia, this was BizarroWorld!

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Atl Blue
First, I am not attacking, just asking. I understand, you are the messenger, not the interpreter. Garth says your historical perspective is accurate, OK, now two of you remember this ruling.

Call it IGNORED or OVERRULED, the 2004 case play pretty much shows that Rumble was wrong, and that by today's interpretation, his ruling is no longer "in effect". The case play specifically says it is a balk "with runners on base".

Ah, step into the mind of Brad Rumble...what does the case book specifically say with NO runners on base?

And if Rumble was calling a balk AND adding a ball, now he was just making up rules.

Now you're beginning to get it.

This was beyond FEDlandia, this was BizarroWorld!

Tomato, Tomahto

[orioles35]

Originally posted by Atl Blue
Dan:

I cannot remember which book it was (Ball Four? No, I don't think so...) where two MLB pitchers were debating this very point one night. So the next day, in a meaningless situation with no one on base, one of them started his windup and then just fell down, just to see what the ump would do or call. The ump called TIME and asked if he was OK. That was it, no other call. The pitcher was actually kind of disappointed.

This was Tug McGraw who did this. Figures, eh?