The Official Forum - NFHS legal windup

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Baseball (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/)

- - NFHS legal windup (https://forum.officiating.com/baseball/19564-nfhs-legal-windup.html)

Re: Re: Billy, Billy, Billy

Quote:

Originally posted by billyhouston

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
In FEDlandia you can "balk" (Brad Rumble's term, not mine) when:

1) If in the wind-up position and the pitcher does the "start-stop" (you see it all the time when a pitcher stops in mid-windup and steps off and starts over) it is determined to be a "balk" (BR term) and a ball is added to the batter's count and,

2) If a pitcher is pitching from the set position and does not make a "stop" (just like with runners on base) it is to be called a "balk" (BR term) and a ball added to the batter's count.

These may not be written in the NFHS rule book, HOWEVER, they were published in the Federation Spring Newsletter during the last 10 years.

The editor of this website may have the specific dates of the newsletters.

In FED it appears that balks do occur with no runners on base.

In closing guys, what other rules do you ignore? Please read this years POEs and get back to me. I am interested to see how you justify not calling the rules that your client publishes.

Lah Me.

[Edited by Tim C on Apr 7th, 2005 at 09:42 AM]

I belive you are wrong Mr. Tim.
With all due respect, the FED rule book clearly states on page 17 Rule 2.3 art1.: A balk is an Illegal act committed by the pitcher with a runner(s) on base which entitles each runner to advance one base.
further more an Illegal pitch which is by fed rule page 21 2.18 art1: An illegal pitch is an illegal act committed by the pitcher with no runners on base, which results in a ball being awarded the batter. When an illegal pitch occurs with a runner, or runners, on base, IT IS A BALK!

There it is in BALK and white.
any way, I think I am going to call it when I see the illegal pitch for the reason I stated in my earlier post.

LOL

Billy

Billy:

Tee was quoting a reference by Brad Rumble, not citing a personal belief. He is correct in his reference. Rumble did say what Tee wrote. Before you argue further you should check with your editor at officiating.com.

Gee Billy, you have a might trouble 'ritin' and mo trouble readin'.

Please ask Carl to explain FED and Brad Rumble.

You might be surprised, Smitty.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tim C
Just a further extrapolation of "not calling rules" . . .

I was surfing umpire websites one day when I found this one:

http://www.hartfordumpires.com

Always being interested in Association websites I went into visit the site.

While working my way through the site I found an area called:

"Interpreter's Corner":

In that space were comments on the 2005 NFHS rules changes.

The following was included:

"The 2005 Casebook page 42 Situation J a) allows the pitcher to make an "abrupt" and quick shoulder turn while on the rubber with hands separated. The case book ruling 6-1-1-SITUATION J is "partially" incorrect The RULING should read illegal in (a)and legal in (b). NFHS is aware of the incorrect ruling and will be changing it in next year's case book. This has been confirmed with Ray Faustich - State Interpreter. In the unlikely even that a "studious" coach refers to the ruling in the case book, the umpire should simply tell him that there was a mistake during printing of the case book."

Now this is just a false statement.

It sounded to me much like a local group "not liking" the new rules and were leading their members down a road.

I contacted Elliot Hopkins at the National Federations of High Schools and asked him if, indeed, the test (question #88), the Case Book example and the Interpretation posted on the FED website were all in error.

Elliot's answer was:

" . . . the rule is very clear in all of our publications as you made note in your e-mail. I know Ray very well and am not sure why he would say that the rule is incorrect when clearly it is not. If the NFHS Baseball Rules Committee and the high school community feel that the rule needs to be tweaked, then it will be expressed to the committee and appropriate measures will be taken. I can tell you we do that similar evaluation with every rule annually. I hope this helps in clearing things up for you."

If you go to the Hartford site now you will find that the referenced material above has been removed.

The POE about professionalism was entered into this years book PRECISELY because of local groups that would not call FED rules they did not like.

We have a job . . . that job is to call the rules of our client.

We have people here that work Little League I don't remember them complaining about those rules. We have people that work NABA I don't hear them complaining about those rules.

I am not sure "why" people have so much heartache about FED Baseball Rules. He!!, FED football and basketball have different rules, I don't see those areas of websites having the problems we seem to have in baseball.
[Edited by Tim C on Apr 7th, 2005 at 05:22 PM]

Tim: You did the FED a real service by calling the CT error to the attention of Mr. Hopkins.

Perhaps you recall the screaming about my play in the BRD concerning a lodged ball: "We ain't calling it in Illinois," someone posted. "Our interpreter told us...." Umpires from other states chimed in. They were all wrong, of course. When the interpreters met in January, the FED administrators put a stop to all that nonsense.

You pointed out that FED umpires are always complaining about the rules rather than doing what their "bosses" (the NFHS) require.

As Marisa Tomei said in My Cousin Vinny, You are "balls on accurate."

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Tim: You did the FED a real service by calling the CT error to the attention of Mr. Hopkins.

Just as a note to Papa C & Tim, I reside in CT but I am not a member of the Hartford Board. I belong to the Greater New Haven Board and I hate to say, we were told the same thing - quick head turn = no balk! Now here is another quandary. All you guys are from different parts of the country and you are calling this a balk per the rules. We get the same rule book but a different interpretation from our STATE INTERPERTER! It's kind of like saying "in Carl's association, you will only wear one ball bag and in mine you may wear two if you wish." If the whole state is getting the information that the quick head turn is not a balk, what are we supposed to do?

Re: Re: Re: bama:

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Tim: You did the FED a real service by calling the CT error to the attention of Mr. Hopkins.

Just as a note to Papa C & Tim, I reside in CT but I am not a member of the Hartford Board. I belong to the Greater New Haven Board and I hate to say, we were told the same thing - quick head turn = no balk! Now here is another quandary. All you guys are from different parts of the country and you are calling this a balk per the rules. We get the same rule book but a different interpretation from our STATE INTERPERTER! It's kind of like saying "in Carl's association, you will only wear one ball bag and in mine you may wear two if you wish." If the whole state is getting the information that the quick head turn is not a balk, what are we supposed to do?

I'm a little confused. A "quick head turn" is not a balk anywhere. The issue is what does the umpire call when the pitcher, before coming to the stop in the set position, quickly turns his shoulders to check a runner. The answer is: Under FED rules/interpretations, he calls nothing, for "That ain't a balk!"

Re: Re: Re: Re: bama:

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900

Quote:

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Tim: You did the FED a real service by calling the CT error to the attention of Mr. Hopkins.

Just as a note to Papa C & Tim, I reside in CT but I am not a member of the Hartford Board. I belong to the Greater New Haven Board and I hate to say, we were told the same thing - quick head turn = no balk! Now here is another quandary. All you guys are from different parts of the country and you are calling this a balk per the rules. We get the same rule book but a different interpretation from our STATE INTERPERTER! It's kind of like saying "in Carl's association, you will only wear one ball bag and in mine you may wear two if you wish." If the whole state is getting the information that the quick head turn is not a balk, what are we supposed to do?

I'm a little confused. A "quick head turn" is not a balk anywhere. The issue is what does the umpire call when the pitcher, before coming to the stop in the set position, quickly turns his shoulders to check a runner. The answer is: Under FED rules/interpretations, he calls nothing, for "That ain't a balk!"

Don't be confused, it's my fault! When we were discussing the shoulder turn, we talked about a quick head turn and a quick shoulder turn. I just was being my 0630 self this morning.

Carl, I'm sure that you read the whole post here with my analogy on the original pause in the windup. I brought this to my superiors, but I won't see the rules interperter until next week. Can you give me your opinion? I promise I will not argue with your opinion but I will print it out for my rules interperter to read. Tim C never got back to me on it. Thanks

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bama:

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900
Carl, I'm sure that you read the whole post here with my analogy on the original pause in the windup. I brought this to my superiors, but I won't see the rules interperter until next week. Can you give me your opinion? I promise I will not argue with your opinion but I will print it out for my rules interperter to read. Tim C never got back to me on it. Thanks [/B]

Here's the passage you wrote:

Now there is the FED wind-up rule. Please tell me how bringing your hands together, is the start of the delivery! I contend that once the hands are together, you have no choice but to deliver or step off. The delivery movement is the next movement after the hands are together. Again, I refer you to simple physics; you have to come to a pause once the hands are together.

I'll go one step further on this. If you try to bring your hands together and go right into your pitching motion (remember, no pause of any kind) you will balk! PLEASE - try it before you respond (not just Tim I mean everyone)!

First of all, the pitcher may as he steps onto the rubber move both hands and bring them together to address the batter. That's legal.

Bringing both hands together after being on the rubber is the start of a delivery because the FED defines it that way. Consult the casebook plays at 6.1.2.

I respectfully disagree that bringing the hands together and going straight to the pitching motion will create a balk.

The pitcher has both hands at his side. He brings them together above his head as his non-pivot foot is stepping back from the rubber. That's a perfectly ordinary delivery in the windup, right?

And that's the basis for the FED rule that movement by both hands, followed by a stop, is a balk. They argue that since an ordinary delivery in the windup begins with movement of both hands, the runner (at third, we presume) may begin his steal of home at that moment. If the pitcher may then legally stop, he may then legally step off after the stop and throw out the runner.

Fact is, the FED rule is excellent. (It's "offense friendly," but so are most of baseball's rules.)

Well said, PapaC . . .

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: bama:

Thanks Carl and Tim C. I see the raising of the hands over the head with no problem (the old pump). My problem was the hands coming together at say chest level. Well, I printed out the whole thread and when I see our Rules guy next week I'll get the "here's how we will do it". Thanks again guys.

Oh by the way Carl, we discussed something several years ago - 1918? The new chant at Yankee Stadium is 2090! I really enjoyed 2004, now I can die happy!!! :p

As things become more clear in your state it looks seriously as if Ray Faustich's interpretation is the root of the problem.

Ray was the chairman of the FED rules committe for several years. He is a BIG "big dog" . . . but set that aside for a moment.

Ray WAS NOT AT THE SUMMER MEETINGS when this rule was developed and agreed upon. I have contacted two members of the committe that wrote the rule and BOTH (independent of each other) said the rule was written, the case book play written and the web interpretation EXACTLY as they wanted it called.

Now Mr. Hopkins left "weasal room" as always that the rule can be tweaked.

I am sorry that you live in a state with a bad interpretation looking you right in the face . . . I would hope that you will get a correction from the State Rules Guru.

Re: Re: Peruvian:

Quote:

Originally posted by ozzy6900
Now there is the FED wind-up rule. Please tell me how bringing your hands together, is the start of the delivery! I contend that once the hands are together, you have no choice but to deliver or step off. The delivery movement is the next movement after the hands are together. Again, I refer you to simple physics; you have to come to a pause once the hands are together.

I'll go one step further on this. If you try to bring your hands together and go right into your pitching motion (remember, no pause of any kind) you will balk! PLEASE - try it before you respond (not just Tim I mean everyone)!

Now we are going to have fun! :D:

See 2-28-3 for the definition that makes moving both hands together the start of the pitch.

I tried the move we've been discussing, and there was no (discernable) pause. That said, my 50mph "heater" was hit pretty hard. ;)

covered in Referee, March 2001

Quote:

Originally posted by wablue
covered in Referee, March 2001

Case closed, a definitive resource has been cited :-)

I am enjoying the discussion of this issue and based on the discussion it seems clear that the rule is not only poorly written, but it's a classic example of rulebook minutia that makes a game more difficult to officiate. I think the reasons why this rule exist have been well explained, but really the only situation in practice where a violation of this rule can be considered deceptive is the hands over head move with a runner on third. The point of the balk rule is to prevent deception. I don't understand why, though, other clear attempts to deceive, such as the "3-1" move are legal and the minor movement of 2 hands to a stop in front of the body is considered deceptive enough to call a balk. Lefties practice moves to deceive runners at first. I agree that they are part of the game, but I don't see the sense from a rules perspective in allowing blatant attempts to deceive and to punish largely unnoticed movements by the pitcher. Rather than wording the rule in general language, the rule should be clear. If the rules committee wants to stop a pitcher from doing something specifically deceptive, they should ban that specific action, not speak in generalities.