I was just looking for comments on why that was a balk? He did legally step off. Can't he throw anywhere? Perhaps they got him for making a motion natuarlly associated with his pitch.

[Edited by ump3 on Oct 16th, 2004 at 09:44 PM]

That's the only thing I could gather from it.

OBR 8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when-
(g)The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate.

Mendoza had a total vapor lock. He legally stepped off and then made his pitching motion and actually threw the ball to home plate. That is as clear a balk as a balk can be.

I was more irritated that Terry Francona was actually out there arguing the call with the umpires. That was a total no brainer balk and Francona demonstrated that he clearly had no clue about the rule. Geez....

Well. . .
 

I don't really think that it is as clear as clear can be. Certainly, if the runner were breaking home, and the pitcher made the same motion, you wouldn't balk him. He would be a fielder throwing home. JMO

I didn't see the play, but that's all I could think of regarding what they were saying.

Re: Well. . .
 

I'm not sure. At least when the pitcher is in contact, it has to be an actual steal attempt, not just a fake.

MLBUM:

7.7 THROWING TO AN UNOCCUPIED BASE
Official Baseball Rule 8.05(d) provides that the pitcher be charged with a balk if, while in contact with the pitcher's plate, he throws to an unoccupied base except for the purpose of making a play.

EXAMPLES:

(1) Runners on first and second, pitcher in set position. Runner breaks for third base and pitcher throws to third base.
Ruling: Legal play.

(2) Runners on first and second, pitcher in set position. Runner bluffs going to third base and pitcher throws to third base. However, runner did not go. Ruling: Balk, pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 8.05(d).

[Edited by Rich Ives on Oct 17th, 2004 at 12:52 PM]

"SNIP"

"2) Runners on first and second, pitcher in set position. Runner bluffs going to third base and pitcher throws to third base. However, runner did not go. Ruling: Balk, pursuant to Official Baseball Rule 8.05(d)."
--------------------------------------------------------
Rich,

I've always had problems with that rule and I don't think 'bluffs' or "fakes" have ever been interpreted.

Sitch.

R2, LHP in set.

F1 looks to second out of the corner of his eye, remember, no shoulder turn when set. R2 disappears on his way to third. F1 spins counterclockwise steps and throws to
third.

The runner has stopped his advance and is now returning to third. It is a clear violation of 8.05(d) or is it?

I have nothing. It all depends on the timing. G.

Spepping Back off the rubber a Balk??
 

 8.01 There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time. Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher
while standing on the rubber.
(e) 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 and if he makes a wild throw
from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.

Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

This rule is quite specific. The Umpire ruling in last nights game is Protestable.

The vague rules in the Balk section never refer to the pitcher legally stepping off the rubber and THEN delivering a Pitch. Once he steps off the rubber, it CAN'T be a pitch.

Dave
******

Most people know a fake when they see one. Take a few steps and stop.

Re: Spepping Back off the rubber a Balk??
 

Dave,
Once the pitcher steps the rubber, there can be no pitch. There can however, still be a balk.

If you saw the play, Mendoza came set, legally disengaged the rubber, but never separated his hands. Immediately after disengaging, he threw to home in the same motion that he would if he was pitching. That violates OBR 8.05, which states, "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when- (g)The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate."

It was a balk specifically because he was not in contact and used a motion obviously associated with a pitch (J/R Manual p.143 #14).

Whether it is protestable or not is questionable, but I would think that it is the umpires judgement as to whether or not he used a motion normally associated with a pitch and I don't believe that is protestable.

"Take a few steps and stop". I am unfamiliar with that phrase.

I have the same manuals that you do and I'm sure we've read every passage pertinent to last Evenings play.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. If that happened to me, I would certainly have been Surprised and probably would have balked him.

Tha balk rule, however, is vague as to when the pitch is delivered. I take it to mean that the pitcher was never on the rubber in the first place. There is no mention of the pitcher stepping back off the rubber and THEN pitching.

That's why I brought up 8.01e.

The OBR, JEA & Roder are vague on this. The MLB Manual and the PBUC manual don't even mention it. I would certainly like Childress to comment on this.

I am going to present this play at our next meeting. I will give them both sides of thought and let them decide how to handle it. A lot of beer has been won and lost over interpretations such as this.

Dave
******

"Take a few steps and stop". I am unfamiliar with that phrase.


I dodn't say it was in a book. Gee wanted to know how one knows if it's a fake or not. To me it is quite obvious.

Re: Spepping Back off the rubber a Balk??
 

What you have quoted has nothing to do with this balk situation. It has to do with throws that enter dead ball territory.

The balk call is not protestable. The balk could have been called for violation of rule 8.05 (d) "The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;" or for violation of rule 8.05 (g) "The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate." It could also be called an balk under 2.00 becuase F1 delivered the ball to the batter while not in contact with the plate.

[Edited by LDUB on Oct 17th, 2004 at 10:45 PM]

Hold up. . .
 

First, the judgement of the balk may not be protestable, but the explanation of such is because that is the application of the rule. 8.05 (d) cannot be used. He was not in contact with the plate. The other could be enforced, but the one you missed, and what they called was an illegal pitch. An illegal pitch with runners on base is a balk. He delivered a pitch while not in contact with his pitcher's plate. I personally do not believe this is a correct interpretation of that rule, but it is what they used. I believe that it is either a motion natuarally associatede with his pitch while not in contact with the plate, or simply a FIELDER throwing to a base.

[Edited by ump3 on Oct 17th, 2004 at 11:55 PM]

Wow,

This is really not that big a deal. I am referring to 8.01e, that's all.

He legally stepped back off the rubber. Do we at least agree on that?

If we do agree, then his next move, by rule, is a throw, not a pitch.

I DO understand your take on the play and I understand your interpretation. I also agree that the call was probably correct.

Just tell me why 8.01e doesn't supercede any balk rule. After all, didn't his legal dismount from the rubber occur first?

If I take this stance at my next meeting, I think I'm gonna be buying a couple of Pitchers.

Dave
******

Not if his "throw" simulates a pitch.

In that case he is in violation of 8.05 (g)...not to mention that action would also fit the defintion of an Illegal Pitch as stated in rule 2.00.

Sigh,

OK

Why the heavy sigh, Dave? This has been the ML interpretation for as long as I can remember, and I've been doing this since 1972.

Tell you what, I'll be seeing one of the top ML rule gurus in the country in a couple of weeks. If he has anything different on this, I'll send you the funds for a 12 pack.

Re: Hold up. . .
 

I messed up, I forgot he stepped off when I put that in.

I didn't miss that one, I cited rule 2.00 and the definition of an illegal pitch in my previous post.

Who is the Guru?

Newcastle Ale.

If your source backs up the popular decision and explains why rule 2.00 and the balk rule mentioned supercedes 8.01e, I will anabashedly and unequivocally support your, and everyone else,it seems,your take on this play.

Dave
****

Yes I agree he did step off.

Not necessarily. It could also be an illegal pitch. Read rule 2.00.

An ILLEGAL PITCH is (1) a pitch delivered to the batter when the pitcher does not have his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate; ... An illegal pitch when runners are on base is a balk.

You are forgetting that it is able to balk while you are off of the rubber. Rules 8.05 (g) and (i) are violations by F1, while not in contact with the pitcher's plate, which result in a balk.

Why do you keep refering to 8.01 (e). This rule has nothing to do with balks. It is about throws by the pitcher, which go into dead ball territory.

8.01
(e) 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 and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder. The pitcher, while off the rubber, may throw to any base. If he makes a wild throw, such throw is the throw of an infielder and what follows is governed by the rules covering a ball thrown by a fielder.

Could you pleas tell me why this would supersede any balk rule?

Throwing the ball wild has nothing to do with it. 8.01e says something like, when he steps back off the rubber, he is just like an infielder. It is then stipulated that IF the ball is thrown wild...... etc. What if the ball isn't thrown wild? To the plate, to a base, to the center fielder, perhaps? It is still considered a throw, by Rule.

Ok, I know I'm on the fringes here but, this is getting to be fun.

Isn't there somewhere in the BOOK that states the the purpose of the Balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from DELIBERATELY deceiving the BASE RUNNER.

Hmmm, What does a runner do when the Pitcher steps back off the mound? Yep, he goes back to the bag. Stepping off like that is not deceiving the base runner. It might, however, although I doubt it, deceive the Batter, catcher and Umpire.

Garth, if you convince me, with the help of your Guru, that I am perhaps, just a little off base here (No pun intended) What libation do you prefer? This is sorta like a bet, isn't it?

I haven't been on these boards for quite some time. It's still fun.

Dave
****

I meant, "Back off the RUBBER.

I think the only thing Francona was arguing is that it appears the balk was not called immediately. The home plate umpire did not call it. I think it might have caught them off guard as you just do not see that, especially from major league players.

It is possible the runner on 3rd (Matsui) broke some to home and Mendoza stepped off and threw home to "make a play" but replays did not show that one way or the other.

But even if he broke he didn't actually go so it's still a balk. See my earlier post where I quoted the MLBUM.

A balk, by definition, is "an illegal act by the pitcher with a runner or runners on base, entitling all runners to advance one base." At the end of 8.05, it does state that the purpose of the balk rule is to "prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner."

The rules, however, go on to list those things that are considered attempts to deceive the runner and those illegal acts are balks.

If you stand on or astride the rubber without the ball, it is a balk. If you come set with your foot off the rubber (like Octavio Dotel did earlier in the year to balk in the winning run from third) it is a balk. The point is that there are ways to balk without being on the rubber.

The rules say that a player in the windup may "disengage the rubber (if he does he must drop his hand to his sides)." It doesn't specifically say it about the set position, but probably should. Otherwise you are either simulating a your pitching motion while not in contact with the pitching rubber or you delivered an illegal pitch as you threw home without being in contact with the rubber.

I Tivo'ed the game and went back and watched Mendoza's balk and he never dropped his hands after stepping off. He just threw like he was pitching to the plate (albeit with no leg kick). The fact that he "stayed set" and then threw home, made it look like a pitch. I think that fact, more than anything else, caused a balk to be called.

If he had dropped his hands to his sides, Francona likely would have had an argument.

Kallix, F1 does not have to separate his hands before throwing home as a fielder. He can legally step off and throw home to retire a stealing R3 without separating his hands. The rule you cite is intended to prevent the situation where F1 steps off, fails to separate his hands, steps back on, and pitches. This is a quick pitch. In other words the hands must separate before he pitches again, not before he throws.

Seems to me that Jim Joyce made a straightforward application of 8.05g. Mendoza stepped off and pitched. The motion was the same. You could try (w/ Francona) to make the case that he's allowed to throw to any base when not in contact, but his motion was a pitching motion and he had no reason to throw to home (a reason is not required by rule, but it would have helped Francona make the case that he was throwing home rather than pitching).

I liked the call. I would guess that Mendoza got stuck between doing two things: stepping off to freeze the runners (he was worried about R1 stealing), and pitching. Alas, he did both.

It means that he is just like an infielder for the purpose of baserunning awards.

If it isn't thrown wild, then this rule does not come into play. Just because F1 steps off the rubber does not mean he can not make a pitch. Read the definition of a pitch.

A PITCH is a ball delivered to the batter by the pitcher. All other deliveries of the ball by one player to another are thrown balls.

It says nothing about F1 being in contact with his plate. Therefore he can deliver a (illegal) pitch to the batter while off the plate.

Yes it does say that the intent of the rule is to prevent the pitcher deliberatley deceiving the runner, but there are some balks where he does not even decieve anyone.

Think about 8.05 (k) and (l). K deals with when F1 drops the ball while on the rubber. Now did he really decieve anyone? No, the runners would just return to there bases. But is it a balk? Yes. Same thing with L. L is about when an intentional walk is being given, if F2 is out of his box when the ball is pitched, it is a balk. Now F2 being an extra step to the side did not decieve the runner, but it is still a balk.

.

Yes you are correct, but I understand what Kalix means. Here is a play, F1 is in the set position, he then steps off, but keeps his hands and free foot in the same spots. He then procedes to stand in this position for several seconds. If the pitcher wants to throw home from the set, he must step off and do it immedieatly, or step off and drop his hands, and then he many throw when ever he wants.

If F1 steps off and holds his position, he is decieving the offense that he is still in contact with the plate. If F1 steps back and throws home immedieatly, no balk. If he steps back, waits 4 seconds and then decides to throw home, it is a balk.

Dave:

Email me privately.

And...remember that 8.05(g) and 2.00 do not say "only if the pitcher had not previously been in contact with the rubber and stepped off." They both simply state "not in contact..." with no regard as to how F1 got that way.

I am convinced that I will be informed that you are thinking too much with your new interp.

I know that, it was meant to say why Mendoza would have done it in the first place as that is not anywhere near normal for a MLB pitcher to do.

Garth and all. Below is a reply from Jim Evans. Wha kind of beer do you drink, Garth

Dave,

Regarding your rules inquiry: Several people have called and e-mailed me regarding what happened in the NY-Bos game Sunday.
Honestly, I did not see the play when it happened but I was recording the game for use at the Academy. When people started calling me, I went back and reviewed the tape and I agree that a balk should be called in that situation. In effect, that is an illegal pitch. He delivered a ball to the batter while not in contact with the rubber. And, an illegal pitch with runner/s on base is a balk, as we all know (8.05e/2.00 Illegal pitch). In addition, you could legitimately call a balk based on rule 8.05 g.(the pitcher made a motion normally
associated with his delivery while not touching the rubber).

Think about it this way: Runners on first and second. There was no runner attempting to advance from third, what is his purpose in throwing home? To exchange the ball? I don't think so in this case. The pitcher got confused and committed what I call a "mechanical balk." There really was no deceit but he violated the procedure just like when a pitcher drops the ball while touching the rubber. There is no deception but that is considered a mechanical balk. If you do not call this a balk and the runner who thinks a pitch has been thrown attempts to steal third is thrown out, should the out stand? I don't think so. Do you see the problems that can incur if you do not use common sense and prohibit this
practice?

You mentioned that once the pitcher stepped back off the rubber, he became an infielder. Since when do you let infielders deliver the ball to a batter who is in position ready to hit? If there is a possible play at the plate, we've got an entirely different situation. In this case, the runner on second (not third ) wasn't even running.

Another litmus test is this: If the pitcher does this four times in a row, are these considered "balls" or "no pitches." If you consider them "balls," the batter walks. If you consider them "no pitches," then Time must have been called and nothing could occur. My suggestion is to call the first one a balk and you eliminate any confusion later.

We can talk more about this later if you wish, I think you are taking the short end of the stick if you do not call this a balk.

Jim

I don't drink, Dave. But the next time we get together, I'll take a grape Nehi.

Radar O'Reilly!!

Nahhhh. Just an old fart who grew up in small town America and can remember spending a dime and getting a bottle of grape Nehi out of one of those old "locker" style soda machines at the town's only gas station.

Dave:

I think one point that's been overlooked is this: As far as I could see/hear, the umpires did not call a balk until the Yankee bench erupted. That tells me the four umps in the infield were <i>also</i> surprised.

It's a balk by rule -- and by judgment.

The language is all technical, but what it means is: The pitcher can't pretend to pitch whether on or off the rubber. Mendoza was on -- legally and then off -- legally.

But the ball he delivered did not <i>look</i> like a pitch. It actually resembled the ball a pitcher throws when he's asking for a replacement. (Was that what Francona argued? grin) It was a looping "pitch" coming in well above Posada's (the batter) head.

Someone in the thread said Mendoza had a brain freeze. I agree.

Some umpire finally called: "Time! Balk! You -- home!" Then, as is their wont now, they huddled and discussed whether it was a "simulated pitch" or a "throw."

"Simulated pitch" obviously won (the balk stood) because no one could come up with a legitimate reason for Mendoza to "throw" home.

On the other hand, I can't come up with any advantage he might have derived from his action.

If I had to come up with a "local" interpretation, I would say: It's a balk if the pitcher legally disengages the rubber and "throws" home unless he is making a play.

BTW: Let's not forget 8.02c, which the umpires could have invoked: They would then have left Matusi on third, warned Mendoza, and ejected Mel Stottlemeyer (the assistant coach - grin).

Dave: I hear your clinic with Jim Evans was a great success. Jeff Staudinger is writing a series about it for the paid site, and I'll ask Jim about his impressions during the live portion of my interview.

It's good to see you in the Forum.

[Edited by Carl Childress on Oct 20th, 2004 at 07:23 AM]

The pitching coach for the Yankees is Stottlemeyer. Not sure who it is for the Sox. Mendoza pitches for the Sox. Now talk about a blow up if you dump a Yankees coach for a Red Sox blunder...lol

You didn't read my post carefully. I'll slow it down.

If the umpires had invoked 8.02c, then:

1. Yankee Matusi would not score. ("It's not a balk!)
2. Pitcher Mendoza would be warned as per black letter law.
3. The assistant coach for the Yankees would be ejected for arguing Mendoza's move <i>was</i> a balk.

Perhaps you're just not familiar with my phrase: "..., and eject the assistant coach."