Balk again??

[PS2Man]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

There are about 125 years of combined experience telling you you are wrong. NOBODY agrees with you. You have yet to cite a single Rule that actually says what you claim is "what the Rules say". You are saying that you are gonna do it your way come he11 or high water, so there, PPffftttth .....

And you are calling ME a troll?

Are you by chance related to a guy that posts as Fish on the NFHS site?

I gave a rule. I have also given a philosophy. Experience does not mean as much to me as it does to you. Experience is very overrated. I have read the things some of these so called experienced umpires and officials have told everyone here.

I called you a troll because instead of sticking to the discussion, you started calling names. If you were so confident in your beliefs are, why the name calling? I do not know you. You definitely do not know me. You do not know who I am or what I know. I do know that when you have to resort to that kind of practice it tells me you are not very confident in your own feelings. I do not umpire by committee. I umpire with my partners and the things I have learned.

[whatgameyouwatchinblue]

are you serious PS2??? What other rules do you make up?

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by PS2Man comments by cbfoulds
I gave a rule. One that does not apply; or say what you claim it says: no "interpretation", just simple reading I have also given a philosophy. "Gonna call it my way even if it's wrong"? That's a "philosophy? Experience does not mean as much to me as it does to you. Experience is very overrated. "...I have been doing this over 20 years..." - Sound familiar? It's from your 12:35 am post. I have read the things some of these so called experienced umpires and officials have told everyone here.

I called you a troll because instead of sticking to the discussion, you started calling names. If you were so confident in your beliefs are, why the name calling? Well, I like to think of them as descriptive: adjectives, in other words, rather than nouns/ names. And accurate, if unflatering. I do not know you. You definitely do not know me. You do not know who I am or what I know. But, from what you have written, I have a very clear idea of what you DON'T know.I do know that when you have to resort to that kind of practice it tells me you are not very confident in your own feelings. Another bad read, there, PS; but thanks for playing. I do not umpire by committee. I umpire with my partners and the things I have learned. [/B]

[mbyron]

Here's the rule you've cited, PS:

"Failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery."---Rule 6-2-4d

Now, you want to read that as saying that the pitcher can't change his motion? Everyone else here - EVERYONE - is saying that you're wrong. Do we need to parse the rule? This is probably a waste of time, but my dinner is cooking so what the hell.

First: the opening of the rule has been omitted. F1 is guilty of a balk for...

Second: as with any rule specifying a balk, this one is a conditional. That is, IF [some event occurs] THEN [it is a balk]. To understand the rule, you have to understand the logic of the conditional.

Third: so what is the condition here? IF ... what? The pitcher makes "any movement of any part of the body...". Hold it right there.

Any movement? Not exactly. They provide an EXAMPLE: "such as" indicates an example or illustration. The example is, a movement "such as he habitually uses in his delivery." But what is that an example OF? It's an example of a pitching motion: the first part of our condition is that the pitcher makes a pitching motion, such as one he habitually uses. He might, of course, have more than one, or he might have none - it's just an example.

So IF he makes a pitching motion, such as one he habitually uses, AND ... what?

Fourth: he fails to come to the plate in a continuous motion. That's the first clause of the original rule, which we finally get around to in our reconstruction of this conditional. The final version is:

IF the pitcher makes a pitching motion with of any part of his body, for example movement habitually used in his delivery, AND he does not pitch to the batter, THEN it is a balk.

The original rule is not stated as clearly as it might be, since it has distorted the conditional structure of its own logic. But that is what the rule means. If not, you'll see a dozen posts right behind mine telling me I'm wrong. That's what this board is good for.

Finally: notice that this rule does not say that the pitcher must use the same motion each time he pitches. There is no such rule. The pitcher can change his motion, within the limits of 8.01(a) and (b), EVERY TIME HE PITCHES. Every pitch. Yes, that's right. We never see pitchers do that, of course, because it would make pitching nearly impossible - pitchers learn to have a consistent delivery so that the ball goes to your spots, but there's no rule prohibiting it. Or, more precisely, since the balk is a defined violation, there is no rule defining changing one's pitching motion as a balk.

This rule does not require that there be a movement that "he habitually uses in his delivery." Most pitchers, of course, have such habits, and umpires use them to judge when the pitching motion has begun. If it begins and stops, that's a balk. If it begins and the pitcher fails to pitch to the batter, then it's a balk. Oh, hey, that's this rule...

Stop the flame war, and tell me where you think this analysis goes wrong. It's not about experience or name calling, it's about the rule. You've appealed to the rule, I've explained it, and according to me, you're mistaken, PS.

If I have made a mistake, please correct it. If you can find another rule that says the pitcher MUST pitch with the same motion, please post it. I sincerely hope that your next post does one of these two things.

OK, my dinner's ready.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by PS2Man
I love little trolls that try to take everything someone says out of context of what the conversation was about. You cannot change your normal motion all of a sudden. For those that can think, that does not mean that your leg cannot move a little bit, or your kick is not as high at one point. Or doing a high leg kick one time and the next minute doing the slide step. But if you did not have a hitch in your motion all game long than you get a little hitch in your motion, you cannot do that. I have been umpire for some time and I do not see kids changing their motion purposely very often. When they do something like that it stands out like sour thumb. I am not talking about a minor change. I am talking about a major change. Not sure how old you are but you might not remember Louis Tiant of the Boston Red Sox? His motion was ugly, but was apart of his normal motion. He had a hitch in his motion and he did it ever single time. If I have a pitcher that does the Luis Tiant motion and was pitching looked more like Randy Johnson all game long, I am balking his ***. You do not have to do that, but I will. I have been doing this over 20 years and I cannot think of any time that a kid did something that unusual and it was not balked. Now that is what I am doing. I really would like a very specific rule reference to back up your claim. Just telling me I am wrong is not enough.

In each of the following plays, assume that F1 has continually used a "normal" (whatever that is), deliberate wind-up motion for the first six innings. Then, in the 7th inning:

1) F1 pumps twice. Balk or not? It's a "major change."

2) As F1 starts his motion, R3 breaks for the plate. F1 speeds up his motion. Balk or not? It's a "major change."

Hint: Neither one is a balk. And neither is the original play (at least not for the reson you've given).

[Tim C]

CB, I think we ALL know who the troll is here.

Good job.

[officialtony]

mbyron,
I guess we have gone around on this way too long. I think what PS has missed ( although I appreciate his interest in my Post very much ) is the part about " . . .failing to pitch to the batter . . . " causing the balk. The pitcher did, in fact, come to the plate. I am convinced that I was wrong based on the input provided. His " pause " was probably the result of his body being turned in that very wierd thing he did to 2nd, and I read that as his " pause ".

Side Note: If there had been a very definite pause in that wierd motion to 2nd, is it then a balk - even if he comes to the plate with his pitch?
Not trying to start this all over again, but that seems to be the point of contention in the balk call for me.

Thanks

[cbfoulds]

Well, fellows: I think I have found the answer. What we need is for Bob or Tee, or someone with some connections in FEDLandia to get a case play and a Point of Emphasis in next year's books. I have taken the liberty of drafting language for both which I think might solve this confusion once and for all:

Case Book:

6.2.4 Situation Z: . Runner at 2d base [can’t bring myself to call it R1 @ 2d, even for immortality in the NFHS Casebook]. Pitching from the set position, F1, who has been using a pitching motion like Randy Johnson, lifts his left leg and turns his body to 2nd base and leans at the runner, using a motion that looks more like Luis Tiant, and then comes to the plate with a pitch (a) in a continuous, uninterrupted motion; or (b) after pausing, motionless, for a discernable time.

Ruling: Legal in (a); balk in (b). In both situations, the Base Umpire, PS2Man is wrong, because there is no balk for using Tiant’s ugly motion after habitually pitching in the style of Johnson.

* * * * * * * *

Points of Emphasis:

Rules myths It has come to the attention of the Rules Committee that some umpires are insisting on being shown specific rules that say that certain acts by a pitcher are not balks, even though there is no language in the Rule Book which suggests that the act in question IS a balk. The Committee would like to remind PS2Man that if an act is not prohibited by rule, then it is permitted. The Committee feels that it would be counterproductive to specifically address every rules myth that currently exists, as this would only encourage PS2Man and others like him to invent new myths, under the pretext that there is no specific rule reference proving them wrong. It is hoped that umpires will read the text with comprehension, and not try to interpret a rule to mean something completely different from what it actually says. The Committee also sincerely hopes that telling PS2Man he is wrong is good enough for him, because after this we are out of options.

That would HAVE to work, wouldn't it?

[Bill Boos]

I probably would not balk him the first time I saw it but I likely would handle it.

Me: "Johnny (Catcher)... Call time and go tell your pitcher that if he hangs his leg again, I'm gonna balk him."


Catcher: as he returns... "Thanks Blue."

[Rich]

Originally posted by PS2Man

I never said he had to deliver the ball the same way. But the pitcher cannot just do something that is completely different than their normal behavior either. Now that is what the rulebook says. Take it or leave it.

Nope, doesn't say that. He can deliver differently on EVERY PITCH as long as each of those deliveries is, in itself, a legal delivery.

[Tim C]

PS2 wrote:

" . . . the pitcher cannot just do something that is completely different than their normal behavior either. Now that is what the rulebook says. Take it or leave it."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

Just tell me where the rule book says that . . .

That is all I ask.

[LDUB]

Originally posted by PS2Man
But the pitcher cannot just do something that is completely different than their normal behavior either. Now that is what the rulebook says. Take it or leave it.

What if the pitcher is ambidextrous? Switching pitching hands is about as different as you can get. Whould you balk that too?

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by officialtony
JV game. Runner at 2nd. Pitching from the set position. the pitcher lifts his left leg and turns his body to 2nd base and leans at the runner and pauses just for a snitch and then comes to the plate. This is a hard one to describe but his body and leg do go towards 2nd a bit and he does pause ever so slightly and then turns to deliver the pitch. What bothers me is the discernible pause and the left leg and body leaning toward 2nd before he comes to the plate. With this little bit of information could I get an opinion as to a balk or what to look for to make sure this is/isn't a balk?
Thanks in advance.

I haven't read the whole thread, so this may be repetitious. But: It ain't a balk, at least not in MLB.

It was the move invented by Luis Tiant (he of the exaggerated, wiggle stretch drop to the pause). It's a right-hander; he picks up his non-pivot foot and pivots half-way to second, then pitches. If you were a sentient being in the 70s, you'd know that. (grin)

It was intended to simulate a throw to second. It takes runners about 2 second to recognize what it is, and that is: It keeps the pitcher from focusing on the glove. If I were an offensive coach, I would love amateur pitchers who try that nonsense.

IIITBTSB!

[officialtony]

Papa C.
You are exaxtly right. His pitch to the plate when it finally arrived was in the dirt and nearly uncatchable by the catcher. If that is what his coach wants him to do to " fool " the runner, I would think the offense would love it. I did, unfortunately, call the balk, because I was also fooled by it. Won't happen again. Guaranteed.
Thanks for your input.