I most certainly did not leave it out. It's right there. You even quoted the citation in my post right there above where you said I left it out. Huh?

Then you are a better man than I am - - or anyone else who relies on authorities and official sources to clarify a book with almost 100 known errors.

I can only hope you reconsider this. It will your downfall as an official.

No, a good official would know the proper ruling on this play. A good official doesn't "sell" wrong calls. That would be a bad official. Good officials make the right call.

No, the sources cannot be taken either way. They are quite clear. J/R, NAPBL, JEA - all of the world's foremost experts on the rules of baseball agree. Who is the lone dissenter? Steve "Bfair" Freix.

I'll go with the experts, if you don't mind.

By the way, Steve, in all seriousness, with no offense intended, do you <b>ever</b> admit you're wrong?

I'll bet that when you were a kid, you were the type who was denying he ate the cake, even with chocolate all over his face and hands. Now weren't you?

Nope!
 

Sorry, but this is just flat WRONG! There are TWO ways a ball can become dead:

1. By rule

2. By the umpire calling "Time"

[see OBR 5.02]

In the case in point, the ball became dead BY RULE [OBR 8.05 Penalty], and regardless of whether the umpire added a call of "Time" to announce that the ball was dead, it was certainly dead before that call.

When is a ball dead on interference? <i>Immediately</i> the offense is committed. The umpire's call of "Time" in such a case only <u>announces</u> that fact to all and sundry. It doesn't make the ball dead because it was already dead BY RULE.

Cheers,

Re: Nope!
 

Just to make a point, Warren, the NAPBL 6.7 BALK MECHANIC states :
<b>"In calling a balk, the umpire shall point laterally at the pitcher and call loudly, "That's a balk." However, the ball is not dead automatically when this call is made. The ball becomes dead when the umpire calls "Time" following the call of balk, <u>and the call of "Time" is to be made only when play stops."</b></u>

I guess this makes the third example in the pitching rule where NAPBL points out <b>not to call time</b> until all play has stopped. Seems like they may want to emphasize it, huh. Warren, when I referred to F1's throw to center it was as it related to this thread and the first 31 posts in this thread prior to yours. Not interference. My error, I should have realized what you might have been thinking.
__________________________________________________ __________

To Jim Porter who asks if I admit mistakes, please feel free to email Warren and he should be able to tell you how I publicly apologized and admitted error concerning a rule dispute we had. I admitted the error because it seemed a long list of knowledgeable umpires opposed me and provided very logical refute in their support.

I don't mind adding, however, it was just a few days later that Carl got a PBUC ruling that supported my argument. I guess I just lucked out on that one, Jim.

------and I do eat too much cake and probably drink too much beer. I'll have one tonight for you (and of course the Moose).

Now, Jim, as far as NAPBL, I noticed that Section 6.7 in which you quoted case example 1 had a total of 8 case examples. I wish to quote case example #7 from the same list in the NAPBL :
<B>"If the balk is followed by a wild throw to a base, the Approved Ruling of Official Rule 8.05 provides that the runner may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own rusk. In that situation, the umpire shall call teh balk in the usual manner but shall not call "Time" until <b>all play has ceased</b>....."</b> It is possible case example 1 was meant for when there was no play occurring during or prior to the balk. Possible ??

This appears to be 4 examples in the same rule whereby it is stressed not to call time until all play has ceased. I think with the runner running before the balk occurring the concept may be to let the runner get as many bases as he desires (knowing he should get at least one after hearing you call balk).

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

[Edited by Bfair on Mar 1st, 2001 at 09:51 PM]

Just doesn't wash, Steve
 

The play does stop -- when the fake is made to first base. The subsequent throw to second is irrelevant and is made with a dead ball.

Let me provide a better example of how it can seem the play continues, but it really doesn't:

PLAY: F1 is startled and balks as the R1 breaks for second. F1 continues his throw to first. F3 catches the ball and, in an attempt to retire R1, throws the ball into the outfield.

Ruling: Play is stopped as soon as F3 catches the ball.

See NAPBL 6.7 (4) -- If the balk is followed by a pickoff throw that is caught by a fielder, call "time" the moment the fielder catches the ball.

Now, in this play, the pitcher balks, doesn't stop, and throws to first base (let's say, to eliminate ANY pause or stop that he steps toward home, in front of the 45-degree line). F3 IMMEDIATELY after catching the ball, in one motion, hurls the ball into the outfield. This happens just as the words, "That's a balk" come out of the umpire's mouth.

Play never stops, but by the NAPBL, we kill the play. It doesn't matter when the umpire calls time - by rule (or rather by the NAPBL extension of the OBR) the ball is dead.

The same principle applies on the original play I posted. Once the fake occurs to first base and a balk is acknowledged (and subsequently called), the pitcher is handling a dead ball. It doesn't matter when the balk is called, and frankly, it would be quite unreasonable to expect that an umpire could get the "That's a balk! Time!" completely out of his mouth before the pitcher has hurled the ball into the outfield.

The balk's penalty is meted out from where the balk is noticed, not from where it is announced by the umpire.

Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 1st, 2001 at 09:47 PM]

Balk Mechanic
 

Rich, read the NAPBL 6.7 Balk Mechanic shown in post prior to yours (or check NAPBL) and you will see the wording is quite specific that the "balk" call and the "time" call are two separate and distinctive calls.

I shall try to follow the mechanic. I didn't write it. Don't blame it on me.
Let's "Blame it on Canada" (grin)

Just another NAPBL flashback,

Steve
Member
EWS

Sure they are, but not here
 

Steve,

Don't try to put all balk calls in the same boat.

If the PLAY warrants that time shall be called, than the ball is dead immediately when the action that kills the ball (per the NAPBL) is made. No umpire "slowness" can eliminate the fact that the pitcher failed to throw to first base. By the NAPBL, that play is to stop.

The balk mechanic lists the "balk" and the "calling" of balk as two separate items because there are a number of plays where the play continues without immediate reference to the balk.

Do you think it is right OR INTENDED that the slowness of the umpire is a factor in whether play continues? Would that Bfair?

Rich

This is crazy
 

It's obvious that continuing action as described with the balk is if the ball is thrown wild, or there is a pitch and the ball is hit.

In the play described it's dead.

That's why NAPBL puts in to call "that's a balk" and then wait to call time. (just in case there is more action)

Since I mostly call FED it's dead immediately.

When I do OBR, I usually wait a little longer (if a play is made) but will call "that's a balk" and throw my hands up to signal time.

Might not be by the book, but it works. In 19 years of calling I have never had a problem with a balk call.

Bfair says you could call it either way and get away with it, but that's simply not true.

The play to first is a balk.

Kill the play and award the base.

End of discussion. If you were to rule any other way, then I will have to come behind you next week and explain it correctly to the coach.

Thanks
David

Re: Sure they are, but not here
 

Rich, I am very pleased you brought up the concept of "INTENT" as I feel that is exactly what all of this is about.

I think we will all agree that a balk could be termed an infraction caused by illegal play (against the rules). In a live ball situation the offense is attempting to advance, and when the defense balks (makes an illegal play) <b>why</b> should that cause the ball to become dead <b>until the offense has <u>completed</u> its effort</b> to advance during that play? That is exactly why the batter can hit a delivered pitch, and the NAPBL says do not call "Time" until <u><i>all</i></u> play has ceased. The rules protect the offense's right to continue their advance to and beyond the base they would be awarded. <i>The rules <u>do not intend</u> to allow the defense to strip the offense of their right to advance while play is occurring.</i> Of course, to go beyond that which would be awarded is at their own risk, but their <b>right</b> to complete that effort is protected. The offense is not the offender of the rules in this play---why are you trying to penalize them by taking their legs out from under them after play has commenced (and contradictory to wording in the NAPBL) ????

In your situation, the runner has started running <b>prior to the balk occurring</b> yet you are going to allow the defense to perform an illegal act (balk) that will stop the play and take that advance away from the runner? To be honest, since the runner is running before the balk, that is even <b>greater reason</b> to allow that play to continue vs. the one specifically addressed in the book----which is a delivered pitch. Even in the delivered pitch we all know the batter has not yet decided to or begun to swing prior to the balk. Yet the rule protects his ability to attempt to advance (as it does the runner).

Thanks for bringing up "intent". Now, tell me why they want to stop the play in progress in your situation when R1 is already running prior to the balk. Is it the intent of the rulemakers to make the umpire memorize the rule vs. understand the game? Please refute this post with logic vs. "the rules say so" as the rules appear to say two things. We know if the pitcher threw to first you would allow the play to continue. Heck, you would allow it to continue even if R1 were not attempting to advance, right? Why does anyone want to kill this play while R1's attempt to advance iS still in progress (and, in fact, started prior to the balk occurring) ???? Please provide the "<b>logic</b> of the intent" of the rule that allows you to <u>diregard the NAPBL's statement</u> to "wait until all play has ceased" before calling "Time".
__________________________________________________ ____

BTW, Rich, the "slowness" of the umpire in calling "Time", as indicated in the quote of yours, is <u>irrelevant</u> since such continued action is done so under a delayed dead ball situation which comnmenced with the "balk" call. Agreed?? <U>If the balk is enforced</u> it is done so from the time of the balk, not from the time in which the official declares "time". There is no harm, therefore, in providing the offense their right to continue.Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

Selling it???
 

In my play with the R1 attempting to go from first to third, time was not immediately called after the pickoff was caught by the first baseman. After the play(s) were concluded we should have gone back and and put R1 on second base, regardless of whether time was called immediately after the balk. In my opinion, we can't sell our way out of this one.

Re: Balk Mechanic
 

Steve,


There's an old umpiring saying, "It's nothing until I call it."

Don't take that so literally.

As to your other post, "Why is it that way?" 'L if I know. Why is it "three strikes, 4 balls"?

I fix it!

He stepped to first.

He failed to throw.

The "play", for the purposes of the balk and the NAPBL passage, is over.

Why do we kill the play when F3 catches the ball after a balk? Heck, F3 could throw the ball into left field and R1 could advance to third base.

Some rules are rules simply because they are. When a pitcher balks and fails to deliver the ball or throw it to the base, the penalty is a dead ball and the runners are advanced one base.

The OBR and the NAPBL are quite clear about this.

Once the pitcher fails to throw, ALL PLAY HAS CEASED for the purposes of the NAPBL citation.

You can argue all you want to the contrary, but you would be wrong. Jim Evans, J/R, Childress, Jenkins, Willson, Porter, BJMoose (member EWS), and Fronheiser all agree.

I've tried to convince you, but we've obviously reached the point where you're beyond convincing.

Rich