Let's talk some baseball.

Last night, our association watched the Jim Evans Balk video. Excellent - I highly recommend.

I came up with a good discussion play as a result of watching the video.

PLAY: R1, outs irrelevant. R1 breaks for second just as F1 starts a pickoff move to first. Surprised by R1, F1 quickly fakes to first while engaged, but almost immediately turns and throws the ball into center field trying to retire R1 at second base.

Result?

Rich

I've got a balk. You said "fake" and "almost" above. Seems to me that this "almost" wasn't a "fake" to first!

P-Sz

Sure its a balk, but then what?
 

Yes, you've got a balk, but it's the word "immediately" that is key.

Was this a continuous motion so that you would wait for the play to end before enforcing the balk, or was there a definite stop after the balk and before the throw so we could rule the play dead at the time of the balk? (Pitcher doesn't throw, kill play.)

Hard to guess without seeing it. If there was enough time to yell balk, and then "Time" before the throw, I'd kill the play believing the pitcher responded to my yell of balk. Runner to second.

If not, then I've got continous action and the ball is alive .

Timing is everything.

Ignore the balk because R1, the only runner, advanced to second safely as a result of the play. (The batter is not considered because he did not become a batter-runner.)

R1 may advance beyond second base at his own peril.

(I suppose this is where I find out that the ball was dead as soon as the pitcher completed the fake or feint - but I'll stick with my answer because you said he turned and threw, "almost immediately.")

Fed ruling: Immediate dead ball upon balk.

OBR Ruling: Balk called with play still occurring and ball should not be killed until all play stops. R1 apparently reaches second and may advance at his own risk beyond that. Balk is now ignored.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

We have the technology....
 

..under OBR. It is explained in the NAPBL Umpire Manual Section 6.7 Balk Mechanic p62<i>ff</i>.

The move by the pitcher to pick off at 1st is not a balk until the precise moment the pitcher <b><i>fails</b></i> to deliver the throw. In other words, the failure to throw IS the balk.

If the pitcher throws wild to any base before the umpire can call "Time" and kill the play, then his throw has <i>immediately</i> followed the balk, and under OBR 8.05 Penalty AR1 the ball remains alive and the runner may continue to advance beyond the base to which he would be entitled as the result of the balk at the risk of being put out.

The pitcher's throw puts "a play" in progress. If the umpire has NOT called "Time" killing play before the pitcher throws, to 2nd base in this case, then he can't call "Time" afterward until "<b><i>all play has ceased</i></b> (runners have stopped trying to advance <b>and</b> a fielder is in possession of the ball in the infield)". [NAPBL 6.7 Mechanic 8, OBR 5.10(h)]

Bottom line: Don't call "Time" until all play has ceased OR until you are certain there will be no play at all, <i>except</i> in the specific circumstances provide under the NAPBL interpretations.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 28th, 2001 at 05:59 PM]

Upon further review...
 

I'm going to change my answer.

The ball was indeed dead the moment the pitcher failed to complete the delivery of the throw to first.

Jim Evans puts it this way:

"<i>When a pitcher balks, one of three contingencies may occur: (1) the pitcher stops his delivery and retains possession of the ball, (2) the pitcher continues his delivery and completes his throw to a base, or (3) the pitcher continues his delivery and completes a pitch to the batter.</i>"

Since the pitcher did not complete delivery of his initial throw, the ball is dead at that moment, and the balk is enforced.

Even though the failure to complete the throw <b>was</b> the balk, the pitcher still retained possession and did not complete the throw. That means that the attempt to throw to second was a second delivery, the ball should have been ruled dead at that time, and the balk penalty enforced.

Interesting situation.

Re: Upon further review...
 

Hmmmm.... looks like I might have been <i>dead wrong</i> on this one (how's that for a sick pun, eh?) :) Curse you, Fronheiser! :D It appears that the mechanics at NAPBL Sect 6.7 #1 and #8 may conflict on this one.

The bottom line appears to be that the ONLY way that OBR 8.05 Penalty AR1 can apply is by a breach of OBR 8.05(c) - failure to step directly to the base. There is no other instance, given this ruling, that can result in a balk immediately followed by a wild throw to a base, and the corollary is that the ball is ALWAYS <i><b>immediately dead</b></i> any time the pitcher feints to 1st.

Cheers,

Don't take my Foster's !!!!
 

I must respectfully disagree, Jim. With R1 en route to 2nd base (play still occurring) the ball should not be killed for the exact reason shown in the situation. The defense errored beyond the balk (favoring the offended offense). Offense may achieve more than the award of the balk (at their own risk).

Who knows, R1 may be related to Warren and thinking about that cold Foster's waiting for him just keep going around 2nd, 3rd, home, the dugout, and right out to the tailgate. If you kill the ball, you blow his opportunity at that successful play. Take away the base, okay------but don't take away the Foster's or you will likely have a protest.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

What the heck, I was almost there anyway.
 

Originally posted by Jim Porter


<B>Jim Evans puts it this way:

"When a pitcher balks, one of three contingencies may occur: (1) the pitcher stops his delivery and retains possession of the ball, (2) the pitcher continues his delivery and completes his throw to a base, or (3) the pitcher continues his delivery and completes a pitch to the batter."</B>

Well, that's not a far leap from where I was. I was looking for a stop after the fake to kill the ball. I can accept Evans #1 above. Balk, dead ball runner to second.

Good play, Rich.

Re: Don't take my Foster's !!!!
 

It's an interesting question for discussion, but the history of baseball solves our problem.

We are accustomed to thinking of "continuing plays" as they relate to the defensive team losing the right to appeal baserunning errors. In that respect the balk to <b>first</b> followed by a throw to <b>second</b> is a continuing play.

But the balk interpretation deals with a "continuous" play. And that's not at all the same thing. Once the first movement toward the base is <b>not</b> completed, any movement by the pitcher thereafter is the second movement. (Nobody can dispute that. grin) A <b>continuing</b> event can have many movements; just look at Beethoven's <I>Fifth Symphony</i>, for example.

But a continuous event ends the instant a second event occurs.

Kill the ball, enforce the balk. Jim Evans, Jim Porter, and Carl Childress all agree.

Re: Don't take my Foster's !!!!
 

So did Warren Willson, at 7.18PM which was probably while you were still composing this reply. I believe even Garth Benham has boarded this band wagon while it was rolling. :)

What do you think about my conclusion that the only way for OBR 8.05 Penalty AR1 to apply is for a breach of OBR 8.05(c)?

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 28th, 2001 at 08:03 PM]

Re: Don't take my Foster's !!!!
 

Steve,

It is <b>not</b> the runner en route which decides whether play continues or not. It is the question of whether or not the pitcher threw wild to a base on his pick-off attempt.

When the pitcher faked to first, he did not complete the throw. Since he did not complete the throw, he was no longer attempting to pick-off a runner. Now he is a fielder, just like all the rest. At that moment, the umpire should call, "Time," and enforce the balk penalty.

<b>It does not matter if runners are en route or not.</b>

The fact that the pitcher subsequently threw the ball into center field is meaningless. He was no longer a pitcher, and he was no longer attempting a pick-off.

<b>Carl Childres (quoted):
But a continuous event ends the instant a second event occurs.

Kill the ball, enforce the balk. Jim Evans, Jim Porter, and Carl Childress all agree. </b>
__________________________________________________ ___

And what exactly do you say to the runner, who started the play by running to 2nd base and has yet to stop (unless he got there before F1 threw ball into centerfield)? He thinks he is still running since his legs are still moving. He hasn't stopped since he started. He thinks he has made a continuous effort toward 2nd as he sees that ball flying toward centerfield. He thinks he wants to continue(ous) toward 3rd base. He's already gotten what he would have received in award from the balk, but he wants more. <b>Why do you <u>impose yourself midstream</u> into this on-going play? </b>
__________________________________________________ _______

NAPBL 6.7 (quoted):

<i>"... The ball becomes dead when the umpire calls "Time" following the call of balk, <b>and the call of "Time" is to be made <u>only when play stops."</b></i></u> (my emphasis)
__________________________________________________ _________

I see the runner as initiating the immediate playing action by attempting to advance (i.e. the offense is initiating the "continuous event", as you call it) and he has not yet started a 2nd action nor completed his first action (obtained and stopped at 2nd base). You seem to be wanting to ignore that <u>the offense is part of this playing action.</u> In fact, the offense initiated this immediate action. Are they no longer part of this play or game?

I am not <u>yet</u> willing to accept this <u>in the manner you have stated it</u>. Can you provide the exact wording of the JEA clause (in context) that justifies killing this play midstream?

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS




[Edited by Bfair on Mar 1st, 2001 at 07:59 AM]

<b><i>Garth Benham (quoted):
Jim Evans puts it this way:

"When a pitcher balks, one of three contingencies may occur: (1) the pitcher stops his delivery and retains possession of the ball, (2) the pitcher continues his delivery and completes his throw to a base, or (3) the pitcher continues his delivery and completes a pitch to the batter." </b></i>

Does Jim Evans say anything about the offense on this play, or has he too ignored that they are part of the playing action as Childress has?

Just my opinion,

Steve Freix
Member
EWS

I think what you're forgetting is the <b>offense</b> is not a part of the balk rule. What counts in the OBR is what -- <b>and when</b> -- the pitcher "does his thing."

In Appendix 27 of the JEA, Evans has 24 plays. In every play we read the pitcher "pitches through" or "throws anyway." As I pointed out in my first post (and without rechecking the JEA, I might add - grin), it's the difference between a continuing play and continuous play. Quoting Evans:<ul>The pitcher balks stepping back off the rubber, and immediately, <b>in one continuous motion</b> [my emphasis], he wheels and throws the ball into the stands on a pick-off attempt. [Penalty: Ignore the balk.] (A-64)</ul>And again, Evans writes:<ul>The pitcher balks stepping off and then he throws (not pitches) the ball past the catcher all in one continuous motion. [All runners advance. Penalty: Ignore the balk.] (A-65)</ul>Allow me to add material from the Jaksa/Roder:<ul>If there is a balk <b>followed by a pause</b> [my emphasis] in which a pitcher does not try to pitch or throw, the ball becomes dead (but only when the umpire signals such) and every runner is awarded his advance base. (6th ed., p. 87)</ul>The important point made by the J/R is that if the umpire doesn't kill the ball, it's not retroactively dead at the point of the balk. The umpire, by not signalling a dead ball, has "announced" his view that the pitcher's action was "continuous."

It does appear that the evidence from authoritative opinion is mounting more and more on the side of "That's a balk! Time! You -- second base!"

Of course, as you pointed out in your first post, the FED umpire has it easy since the ball is always immediately dead. (BTW: That was also the OBR rule until 1954, which is the first year I stepped onto the field to call balls and strikes.)

What do you say to the runner when the pitcher balks, doesn't immediately throw, realizes he's (a) balked the potential winning run into scoring position, (b) will be taken pout of the game, (c) just lost his chance for the big endoresement deal, ... so, turns and throws the ball into the stands?

You say the same thing to the runner in the original play -- "It was a balk, not a continuous throw, so the ball is dead. Stay at second base."

Bob a general question for you

On a continuous action Balk scenario with CI, why not <b> SIGNAL AND CALL TIME IMMEDIATELY </b>, once either the BR is put out or runners on base are forced out?

By killing the play immediately after the BR is put out, all this other nonsense about balls being thrown out of play, runners passing one another, etc. do not happen. When all runners do not advance at least 1 base on CI, there really is no option, because if the coach wants to accept the play - the play is <b> The Balk </b>

Thanks Bob

Pete Booth

Pete, I think you posted this on the wrong thread. Were you trying to answer one of Jim Porter's "impossible" plays?

There's no option on a balk call. And Bob's point was <b>exactly</b> the point you're making. Unless the action is continuous from balk to pitch/throw, the umpire <b>will</b> call time and enforce the balk penalty by awarding the appropriate bases.

<i> Originally posted by Carl Childress </i>


<b> Pete, I think you posted this on the wrong thread. Were you trying to answer one of Jim Porter's "impossible" plays?

There's no option on a balk call. And Bob's point was <b>exactly</b> the point you're making. Unless the action is continuous from balk to pitch/throw, the umpire <b>will</b> call time and enforce the balk penalty by awarding the appropriate bases. </b>

Papa C my Bad - I was thinking of Jim P's "impossible plays" and wanted to know if the proper mechanic is to kill the play immediately once either the BR or lead runner (who is forced out) is put out, so that all the "stuff" that Jim P mentioned in his "impossible scenario" does not happen.

In other words, why allow all this confusion on the base paths once we know that the conditions of CI are not met and we have a Balk "to boot".

Thanks

Pete Booth

Two similiar balk situations
 

I have already had two odd balk situations this year using OBR rules.

Pitcher balks in the process of picking to first, runner is stealing and heads for second, first baseman throws ball into center field and runner is retired attempting to advance to third.

Runners on first and second, full count, pitcher balks (no stop) while delivering to the plate. Result of the play is ball four, batter/runner goes to first and both runners move up one base due to the walk.

Re: Two similiar balk situations
 

Dani: In the second play the call was dead on.

You (or someone) blew the first. The interpretation is this: If the pitcher balks and immediately throws, if the fielder (F3 in your case) catches the ball, the umpire should stop play at that point. (NAPBL 6.7-4)

Re: Two similiar balk situations
 

Dan,

I concur with Papa C. In fact, all authorities, interpretations, sources, case plays, case books, and official rulings agree.

When the pitcher balks while making a pick-off throw, if the throw is caught, time is called and the balk penalty imposed. Also, as we found out with Rich's play, if the pitcher does not complete the throw, the same conditions apply.

It is only when the pitcher balks and his one and only pick-off throw goes wild that we keep play alive and allow runners the opportunity to achieve bases beyond their awarded base(s) (when the pitch is not delivered, of course.)

<b>Carl Childress (quoted)</b>
<i>I think what you're forgetting is <u>the <b>offense</b> is not a part of the balk rule.</u> What counts in the OBR is what -- <b>and when</b> -- the pitcher "does his thing."</i> (my underline for emphasis)

__________________________________________________ _________


Again, Childress, <b><u>this statement</b> is totally wrong</u> and <u>utterly ludicrous</u> as it applies to OBR (which has what the primary discussion of this thread has concerned itself with). The offense <u>IS</u> part of the balk rule whether you wish to accept it or ignore it. One needs merely to look at the Penalty portion of the rule to realize it. It is the continuing actions of the defense and offense that determine whether a balk will be enforced or ignored. Following your logic, because a pitcher delivers a pitch and is done completing his pitch (defensive portion complete), that would mean an umpire should declare "Time" as you profess? We all agree (hopefully) that this is not done because it also <b>depends upon the continuing action of the offense---which, indeed, is therefore <u>part of the balk rule.</b> </u> All may find it in the rules or NAPBL.

Your statement, however, is effectively true as it applies in Fed since it is an IMMEDIATE dead ball and the acts of the offense have no bearing whatsoever upon the enforcement of the balk.
__________________________________________________ _________

<b>NAPBL 6.7 (quoted): </b>
<i>"... The ball becomes dead when the umpire calls "Time" following the call of balk, and <u>the call of "Time" is to be made only when play stops."</u> (my emphasis)</i>

<b>NAPBL 6.8 Penalty for Balk (quoted):</b>
<i>"Under Official Rule 8.05, the penalty for a balk shall be: The Ball is dead <b><u>(when play stops)</u></b>, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out <b><u>unless</b></u> the batter reaches first on an hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

Note that in cases where a pitcher balks and throws wild to a base or home plate, a runner or runners may advance beyond the base to which he is entitled at his own risk."</i>

__________________________________________________ _______


Childress, you wish only to recognize the batter as an operative part of the offense. Please realize that the runner, too, is an opertative part of the offense.

Please note that NAPBL states in both sections that <b>when play stops</b> is when "Time" should be called by the umpire. It does not state to call "Time" in the middle of the play when <u>only the defense</u> has stopped, as professed by Childress (and in direct contradiction to the NAPBL).

<b>Initial play presented by Rich F.: </b>
<i>PLAY: R1, outs irrelevant. <u>R1 breaks for second just as F1 starts a pickoff move</u> to first. Surprised by R1, F1 quickly fakes to first while engaged, but almost immediately turns and throws the ball into center field trying to retire R1 at second base.</i>

<B>SO IN SUMMARY :</B>
---we have a play in progress
---F1 balks (play still in progress)
---F1 turns & throws ball to centerfield (play in progress)
---R1 continues to run (play in progress)
---NAPBL says do not call "Time" until <b>"play stops"</b>
---Childress kills play ? Why??

Now, Childress, what exactly is unclear regarding NAPBL and their statement <b>"when play stops"</b> that you don't understand and therefore must go to JEA to get "authortative opinion" to clarify?

Childress, I can agree with your interpretation in principle only because 99.9% of the time when the balk is declared by the umpire the players cease their action. The coaches don't know the rules that well and a veteran umpire can typically sell his knowledge of the rules on the field without a $$$$ithowse developing. Yes, Childress, even me, believe it or not.

Just my opinion,

Steve
Member
EWS

Steve,

Whew. And I mean, "Whew!"

I gotta hand you one thing - - you're very good at manipulating language around your idea of what is correct.

You went through a lot of trouble for nothing, Steve. You've gotten confused between a balk with play being kept alive because of a <b>batted ball</b> and a balk with play being kept alive because of an <b>overthrow</b>.

The two just aren't the same.

Of all those quotes from the NAPBL that you provided, you seemed to have left out the one <b>definitive</b> quote.

By golly, Steve, I don't see how it can be any clearer. If the fake or feint as posted by Rich is not a clear cut case of a pitcher who, "balked and did not throw the ball," then I don't know what is. The very definition of a fake or feint requires that the throw is not made.

You've got to get over this idea that the offense creates the live ball in this situation. It does not. The offense has absolutely nothing to do with it. The <b>only</b> question is whether the pitcher, who balked on his pick-off throw, threw wild on that pick-off throw.

- If he doesn't complete the throw, time is imposed by the umpire, and the balk penalty enforced.

- If he completes the throw, and the ball is caught, time is imposed by the umpire, and the balk penalty enforced.

Where does the offense figure in to this?

Nonetheless, Jim Evans makes it perfectly clear (if the NAPBL Manual wasn't good enough for you.) His rulings make perfect sense, and your arguments do not. It is that simple a matter.

Pretty straight forward - right from NAPBL
 

Wow. I wasn't expecting this kind of a discussion.

The answer on this play is, "That's a Balk! Time! That's a Balk! You! Second base!"

Reference the NAPBL passage quoted above.

The pitcher did not throw. The action was not continuous. The play didn't throw Carl, although it caught up some other fine umpires.

I posted this play, cause it threw quite a bit of people at the meeting. They focused on the protection of the runner on the wild throw into the next base and the fact that the runner was in jeopardy going into third.

A good discussion, except the pitcher threw a dead ball into center field. A valid discussion if the pitcher had balked and thrown it away without pausing/feinting.

Rich



[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Mar 1st, 2001 at 04:05 PM]

It's apparent we're going to A2D on this play. On the "dead ball balk" side are Szalapski, Benham, Porter, Willson, Childress, Jenkins, Booth, Evans, and Jaksa/Roder. On the "keep playing" side is Steve. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it should cause you to do some rethinking. Remember the old saying from Satchel Paige: "If it's you against the world, bet the world."

Perhaps you're pinning too much on how you read the NAPBL. You're quoting it correctly, of course, but you're putting the emphasis in the wrong places. The NAPBL says that time should not be called until the play stops.

I agree!

But there are two plays in Rich's original situation. Play 1 occurs from the time the pitcher balks until he does not continue. (Remember? Rich said "<b>almost</b> immediately." [my emphasis] The authorities say "continue," which is "immediately.") Play 2 occurs when the pitcher wheels and throws the ball away.

It's that PAUSE (spoken of by all authorities, including me -- grin) that signals the end of one play and the start of the next.

For example: Try this play, which I'm borrowing from dani:<ul>R1 stealing. F1 balks but throws through. R1 tries for third and is thrown out. Now you would say that looks like one play. The pitcher never hesitated, the runner never stopped, and yet....</ul><ul>NAPBL 7.3-4: If the balk is followed by a pickoff throw to a base that is <b>caught</b> [original emphasis] by a fielder, call "Time" the moment the fielder catchers the ball. Then enforce the balk.</ul> So even the NAPBL recognizes that though the <b>offense may continue running following a balk</b>, there are events that force the umpire to stop play. One is when a catcher cathers a pitch or a fielder catches a throw. The other is when the pitcher does not pitch or throw through.

For example, Evans speaks of a play where there are two out and R1, with a full count on the batter. The pitcher balks but "pitches through anyway." It's a wild pitch. The batter swings and misses. R1 reaches third, but the B-R is thrown out at first. Evans:<ul>Since the batter did something on the play to become a B-R, he must be included in the umpire's thinking in figuring out this play. [Since the B-R did not advance a base, go back and penalize for the balk: R1 to second, B-R returns with a full count.] (A-64)</ul>I believe if you read through all the JEA plays you would begin to see how the professional authorities, including the NAPBL, define "pitching" or "throwing" through.

I hope this has been of help.

This was way fun!
 

Reading these two pages was fun! I'm fairly wishy washy..so I swung from one side to the other. The finality seems to be the lastest NABPL quote from JP.... If the pitcher balks and doesn't throw..it's over. Which seem to say the fake to 1st is BY DEFN, a no throw dead ball sitch. (Assuming the ump is awake enought to call it.)

My Club Buddy put up the good "fight".. but 6.7 -1 tells me what I needed to know.

And, if I may digress, these two pages were refreshing in showing how intelligent umpires can DEBATE differences of opinion and interpretation and remain civil. As the elder statesman, Carl should lead by example here, and he did most excellently.

Mike B
EWS

<b>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

<i>The pitcher did not throw. The action was not continuous. The play didn't throw Childress (and civilized people <u>without a chip on their shoulder call him "Carl" )</u>.....
......A good discussion, except the pitcher threw a dead ball into center field. A valid discussion if the pitcher had balked and thrown it away without pausing/feinting.</b></i>
__________________________________________________ ________

First of all, Rich, <u>I prefer</u> to call him Carl (as I usually did) and will do so as he has now referred to me as Steve. He was first to <b>choose</b> to refer through use of last name only, and, as stated in past, it is my intent to respond to Carl in same <b>manner</b> he chooses to address me.

Secondly, I agree that F1 threw a dead ball into center <b>if and only if an umpire <u>called time.</u></b> If not, it remains a live ball. It would have been nice if the author of the situation were to have typed "and the ump called time" during the "pause" the pitcher was taking before throwing into center. (grin) No pause, no time called.

Now, the question is whether time <b>should</b> be called. As you described, Rich, F1 turned and "almost immediately" turned and threw to center. Can you understand how some might interpret <b>your</b> statement as without a pause (as J/R would interpret as continuous)? <b>Trick questions</b> are not bad as long as they trick you on the situation, not the vagueness of the wording. <b>Vagueness</b> in the description of the situation is merely playing games---and, when <u>purposely</u> made vague, a relative waste of time to those here to discuss umpiring.
__________________________________________________ _________

<b><i>Jim Porter (quoted):

NAPBL 6.7: "The question arises as to when the umpire is to call "Time" to kill the ball after calling a balk. The following cases should help explain when play is considered "stopped'~ and at what moment the umpire should call "Time" following the call of balk:

1. If the pitcher balks and does not throw the ball, call 'That's a balk; time' and enforce the balk."</b></i>
__________________________________________________ ___________

<b>Jim, you left out the wording of NAPBL 6.7 that says:</b>
<i>"The <b><u>question arises</b></u> as to when an umpire is to call "Time" to kill the ball after calling a balk. The following cases <u>should help explain</u> when a play is considered "stopped" and at what moment the umpire should call "Time" following the call of balk>" </i>

Really, Jim, what <u>question</u> arises when in the situation provided you have a runner advancing <b>BEFORE</b> the balk was committed. If this were any other play would you consider this play as one in progress or stopped? The <u>example</u> prvided (in case you are in question) is good. Why would you be in question, however, if a runner is still advancing" I don't understand. The rule says don't call time until <b>"all play has ceased".</b> I know what that means (without question) and do not have to rely on on authoritative opinion to help me in that determination. <u>I know that if a runner is progressing and he started during a live ball, it is a play that has not yet ceased.</u> Therefore, I do not yet call time. If you have question if a play is occurring, you should rely upon your example case to "help explain".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

<b>It's apparent we're going to A2D on this play. On the "dead ball balk" side are Szalapski, Benham, Porter, Willson, Childress, Jenkins, Booth, Evans, and Jaksa/Roder. On the "keep playing" side is <B><u>Steve</b></u>. That doesn't mean you're wrong, but it should cause you to do some rethinking. Remember the old saying from Satchel Paige: "If it's you against the world, bet the world."</b>

If it weren't for people willing to disagree, like Adams, Hancock, Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington we might all be sounding a lot more like Warren right now. (banish the thought---grin) I may be independent in thinking at times and certainly not afraid to discuss (and admit when proven wrong), but I am not wrong for logically disagreeing or even questioning when I do not understanding.

I agree with Carl. As I said before, this is a waste of time since it's so nit picky. A good official can sell it either way-------just as the rules, interpretations, opinions can obviously be taken either way.

Just trying to prove a point,
(and BTW, the offense is part of the balk rule)

Steve
Member
EWS

I edited that part, Steve, but not quickly enough.

I don't want to get into personal issues or personalities, but I let a rough afternoon get the best of me.

I didn't intend this as a trick question, really.

That's why I intentionally put in the word "almost". A subtle difference, perhaps. A trick, no.

I hope that this play had people diving into the NAPBL and looking at the interpretations regarding when OBR balk plays should be stopped and should be allowed to continue.

Rich

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