with no runners on, i had a pitcher start his delivery, and not finish it. im sure we've all seen this before, that in the middle of his delivery maybe the pitcher trips, or the ball falls out of his hands, or someone yells/distracts him. for me though, this was the first time as am umpire. in any case, i called a ball because of an illegal pitch based on these OBR rule quotes:
"The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot free. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration"...."From this position he may: (1) deliver the ball to the batter, or (2) step and throw to a base in an attempt to pick off a runner, or (3) disengage the rubber"... "If the pitcher makes an illegal pitch with the bases unoccupied, it shall be called a ball unless the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise"

thankfully enough it was a harmless count of 0-0 which i made 1-0, but i got a little heat for it, not too bad, stuck to my guns and moved the game on. is that the right call?? thanks

With no one on base, this is nothing.

With runners on base, it's a balk.

It is never a "ball".

Read the italized note under 8.01d This will explain why it is nothing. Think of the pitch with no runners on as not having left the pitchers hand and not having crossed the foul line.

Gentlemen correct me if I am wrong.
If the pitcher is on the rubber with the ball and starts his motion and the ball slips out of his hand, is this not considered a pitch? And if so, and the pitch was not stuck at or crossed the plate in the strike zone, would it not have to be a ball whether or not anyone is on the bases?
Thanks

8.01

d) A ball which slips out of a pitcher's hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base

Thank YOu

this might be a bit nit picky, but because of this specific line in the rules "From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration", i would assume that the pitcher HAS to pitch the ball. If he doesn't, then what is the penalty? there has to be some sort of penalty because a rule was violated.

as to the rule "8.01

d) A ball which slips out of a pitcher's hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base"

i would say that at least in that case the pitcher did attempt to pitch, meaning he did commit and tried to finish, or at least the ball actually left his hands. so the rule addresses that...but it doesnt address, what if a pitcher goes through his delivery and fakes a pitch, meaning never lets go for whatever reason...could you imagine??! i think the umpire would look like the bigger fool if nothing is called here, or at least a warning. you cant keep calling something like that 'no pitch' if it happens a few times.

i am not posing this as an argument, but i would like to see anyone else's opinion on this because i've talked to six umpires already and two have said i made the right call even though i really didnt 'need' to call anyhitng, and of course the other four felt no pitch.

Dan:

Well, to the two that told you you made the right call, quit going to them for advice. They were wrong.

This happens in MLB occassionally. A pitcher, with no one on, will start his delivery, then suddenly stop, because something isn't right. Guess what gets called? NOTHING!

Look in 8.01 (which you said he violated) and find a penalty for violations of stopping his delivery. I'll save you the time: there isn't one!

And 8.05 starts with, <B>If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when...</b>. If there are no runners, there is no balk.

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.

If a pitcher makes a habit of it, you could warn and eject based on him delaying the game, but that is a bit extreme. The first time, ignore it. If you want, call time, make the batter step out and start the whole ritual over again. It's not necessary to call time, but if it makes you feel you have done SOMETHING when the pitcher does this, then call time.

But don't call a ball.

I think it as simple as this. If it is a actual pitch that was illegal with no one on, it is a ball. If F1 didn't deliver the pitch, it wasn't a pitch.

If he was delivering a spitball to home or a cut (that he cut) baseball, or pitched to the batter without doing all of the things that you have to do to make that pitch legal, it is a ball with no one on. Otherwise it is nothing.

This isn't fully encompassing, but I think this explains why it is not a ball if F1 fails to deliver a pitch with no one on.

There are many rules with no penalty. This is one of them.

I assume that there is no one on base when this happens. But why whould the pitcher want to fake a pitch? If this ever did come up, I would warn the pitcher right away.

You were wrong, and so were those other two guys who you talked to. I don't understand how you don't need to do anything. If you were going to call the pitch a ball, would you not have to call "ball"? And if you were going to call it no pitch, would you not say "no pitch"? Either way you have to make a call.

Hmmm,
 

I just wanted to intone that under National Fed Rules (Fedlandia) that this is a balk.

When Brad Rumble was in charge of the book he rules in the 1996 Spring News Letter that this was a balk.

(Same newsletter also noted that if a pitcher pitches out of the set postion "even with no one on base" it is a balk if he does not make a clear and noticable stop when pitching.)

I just wanted to note this as a "side bar" in that many umpires work so many rules books (true, two rule books with endless "adaptations") that maybe the umpire was confused as to the "governorship" of his rules.

Tee

I don't think it is that extreme to warn the pitcher. There is a difference between slipping and falling, and faking a pitch. If this guy if faking a pitch with no one on, there is something wrong with him, and you have to do something to stop him.

Re: Hmmm,
 

How does F1 balk with no one on base?

OK,
 

Don't kill the "phocking" messenger . . .

It is the rule, I did not make it.

Tee

Re: OK,
 

FED rule 2-3-1.

A balk is an illegal act commited by the pitcher with runner(s) on base which entitles each runner to advance one base.

<B>I don't think it is that extreme to warn the pitcher.</b>

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.

Never,
 

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

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.

<I>Added in edit:</i>

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 <B>if there were any runners on base.</b>

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]

Rumble
 

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

Re: Never,
 

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.

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!

[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 <i>specifically</i> 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

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