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.

IIITBTSB [well, damn near]

This "pause": was it longer than that necessitated by the laws of physics in F1's change of direction [i.e.: if'n it'd been his "set", you'd say he did stop]? And nothing of F1's body [not an arm or a leg, or his trunk] was still moving during this "pause"?

Hard to say w/o seeing it, but it sounds to me like nothin' more than F1 "rearing back" to bring the heat.

Now, if he comes to a stock-statute-dead stop and hangs there for a second or so with his foot in mid-air like something out of "The Karate Kid": OK, maybe I've got a balk for failing to deliver in a continuous, uninterrupted motion.

But the leg & body turn [and even the "lean"] by themselves mean squat; and 9 times out of 10 when I hear a coach get excited about a ?balk? like this, what really has their shorts in a knot is they thought F1 was gonna go to 2d Base, not home, due to the turn of the body & leg motion. Sorry, coach, his whole stinkin' free foot can go back of the rubber & his body can turn to face Pluto for all I care, & F1 can still go home, as long as he does it in a continuous motion.

BALK!
 

Was this motion consistent with his normal motion to the plate? If not, I have a balk. It is obvious that he was trying to deceive the runner and fake his intentions.

Gents. Thank you for responding.
I did in fact call a balk. I'll tell you why and perhaps get your feedback again. First, listening to cbfoulds, I feel like I may have erred. His pause, while distinct and percieved by me, was not so clear to everyone else. But it was his pause that caused me to think about calling the balk. What really caused me to call it was in line with the reply by PS2man. It was not his natural delivery. He did this in the 3rd inning and only with the runner on 2nd base. I really felt like he was trying to decieve the runner. AND it was not consistent with his delivery up to this point. I discussed it with my partner ( I was the PU )at the end of the innng and he confirmed my feelings. The problem is, he ( the BU ) had turned his head to check on the runner at 2nd ( and I still can't figure out what he was looking for ), and didn't see the move. So I was explaining it to him, much like I explained it to you. He agreed with my call, but I don't know if he REALLY understood OR REALLY agreed. I just want to be sure if I'm wrong, that I don't call it again. And if I am right, I want to be right for the correct reasons.

Thanks for the help

This doesn't seem like a balk to me. My buddy who pitched for years did a similar move- no pause- and never got balked for it.... i tend to agree with cb on this one.

largeone59,
Thanks for jumping in. I went on the theory that he was doing it to decieve the runner and it was NOT part of his natural delivery motion. Was your buddy doing it to decieve and was it part of his natural motion? I will defer to majority opinion on this one. I just want to do the right thing. Also, as I stated, there was a pause, albeit slight, which aided my decision. You indicated that your buddy did not pause.
Thanks for the input. Right now my jury is still out, although I am beiginning to think I may have been too quick on the trigger on this one. I wish I had more time to think it through when it happened.

This might have been apart of your buddy's motion. It sounds like this player did something specific to deceive the runner. You cannot just change your motion and stop. I am using 6-2-4d as my reference.

Ok, I'll start w/ : everything that follows is IMHO, OK?

1st problem: PS2 has the rule analysis backwards.
Oh, yeah, and deception [even intentional] by F1 ain't necessarily illegal, much less a balk.

F1 can change his delivery to the plate with every pitch, if he wants to: "his customary delivery" becomes an issue only if he begins same and then DOES NOT deliver to the plate.

You will look for a long time without finding anything in the rule book that says if F1 fools the batter or runner, it's a balk. He!!, that's what F1 is SUPPOSED to do - fool 'em. There are certain, enumerated offenses which are punished as a balk: which one of them did this F1 comit? If you can't point to one, good bet he didn't balk.

The bottom line in your sitch comes down to the "pause". I suspect [but obviously cannot know] that the pause only became real significant to you as it began to dawn on you that maybe you'd errored. I HAVE seen kids "hang up" as if they might be stepping to a base, and that's often a balk. As I said earlier, though - as a simple matter of physics, there is a "pause" of some kind any time there is a change of direction. We all know that a change of direction is not a "clear and discernable" stop for BB purposes. Also, in order for F1's motion not to be "continuous and uninterrupted", EVERYTHING - both arms, both legs, his trunk - has to completely stop moving all at once and together. While this CAN happen, I suspect [but again, cannot know] that this did not happen in your sitch.

In conclusion, forget about what F1 was/is trying to do, 'cause in general the rule book does not care: focus on what he actually DID. If what he actually did violated one of the specific rules defining a balk - nail him.

It is still a balk.
 

It is not an automatic in my opinion. I just said it sounds like a balk to me. It does not sound to me from the story that the pitcher was doing something in his normal motion. The rulebook uses the word habitual as their description of what the pitcher can do. All that means is their movement has to be part of their regular or normal motion. If that movement is not normal, then you can call a balk. Kids at that level are usually not that smart enough to do little things to make it look normal. I am calling a balk in this case. I have also called a balk in this situation.

haha, once again, i agree with cb. Took the words right out of my mouth.... err.. keyboard. Judging that if, and only if, there was no stop, then this is legal. If you judged there was a stop, then balk 'em!

tony, i've never heard of the rule you're citing- where you have to make your delivery look the same every time, or it's a balk. can you give me the rule ref?


Also, just to clarify, my buddy's move was: when he'd go from the stretch, he'd come set, almost do a kick directly towards second base (shoulders, head, everything square with 2nd, but pivot foot remained still), then step towards home and throw. It's hard to put into words... i wish i had a video camera and a video editor right about now so i could act it out and post it.

Re: It is still a balk.
 

I added emphasis to the part where you go wrong.

I'll bet you that you cannot quote me [give me the words from the book, please] a rule that says if F1 deviates from his habitual motion, it's a balk. EXCEPT for if he starts his habitual motion and does not deliver to the plate: this F1 delivered.

Re: Re: It is still a balk.
 

I never stated that in the rules you had to deceive the runner in order to have a balk. I am saying that the motion is not normal. If the motion is not a normal part of the pitcher's motion, then it can be considered illegal.

"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 if your interpretation is different that is fine with me.

Re: Re: Re: It is still a balk.
 

What is there to interpret?

Where in 6-2-4d does it say that it is a balk to use a motion to pitch that he does not "habitually use in his delivery"?

We agree, I believe, that Tony's F1 DID NOT make ...any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery...[I mean, that WAS your point, right?: it wasn't his habitual delivery], so THAT part of the rule don't apply. And I hope that we agree that Tony's F1 DID NOT "fail.. to pitch to the batter...", 'cause Tony says he pitched. So what part of this rule are you "interpreting"?

officialtony,

FWIW, I am squarely in cbfould's camp on this question. As I envision the delivery from your description, the only thing that could be considered a balk would be the pause. And, as cb pointed out, that means his entire body would have to be motionless and it would have to more than just a "change in direction".

I'm guessing from your comments (as well as those made by PS2Man) that what's causing you to consider this a balk is the phrase (from OBR, not FED - sorry, I don't have a FED rulebook handy):

"<i>....From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without <b>interruption</b> or <b>alteration</b>. ....</i>"

which is found in the rules describing the legal pitching positions. Now, I don't even know if the identical wording is used in the FED rulebook or not, but I have been taught that the principles are the same (despite the numerous differences between what is legal and illegal for an "in contact" pitcher under OBR vs. FED) in regard to this aspect of legal/illegal deliveries.

Let's take the easy part first - "interruption". This means that an "in contact" pitcher cannot start to do something and then stop "in midstream". Hence, cb's very <b>on target</b> statement"

"<i>The bottom line in your sitch comes down to the "pause".</i>"

If, in the <b>sole</b> judgement of the umpire(s), this "pause" constituted an "interruption", it's a balk. If not, it's not.

The only "exception" to this proscription is that a pitcher may "stop" a pick-off move to 2B or 3B before completing the throw. However, even in this case, he must complete the "direct step" towards the base without "interruption".

Now for the trickier part - "alteration". Now, in "plain English" it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation to infer that this means that "the pitcher must do it the same way every time." However, this is <b>not</b> what it means in the context of the rules of baseball.

In this context, it means that a pitcher cannot <b>start</b> to do one thing and then <b>change</b> it into something else. Now this a little tricky, because when a pitcher who has come set <b>starts</b> his "motion", we don't yet know what he has "started" to do.

Let's take a RHP who is "set" (I'm inferring from your description that the pitcher you balked was a RHP - the same would apply to a LHP, only in "mirror image".)

Once he begins to lift his free foot toards "balance" we know he has "started" to do one of three things (we'll assume bases loaded):

1. Pickoff throw/feint to 3B

2. Pickoff throw/feint to 2B

3. Pitch to the batter.

Once his free foot crosses the "plane" of the rubber (Back edge for OBR, and, I believe, front edge for FED) he has started to do one of two things:

1. Pickoff throw/feint to 2B

2. Pitch to the batter.

Once his motion (foot, shoulder, pretty much anything) reverses towards the direction of home, there is only one thing left:

1. Pitch to the batter.

As cb has already stated, there is <b>no requirement</b> that a pitcher "do it the same way every time" in either delivering a pitch or in attempting a pickoff. As long as he complies with the legal delivery requirements and avoids the balk proscriptions, he can do it differently <b>every time</b> (this might wreak havoc with his control, but it would be perfectly legal).

JM

[Edited by CoachJM on Apr 10th, 2005 at 07:19 PM]

Tony said he paused, and then made a pitch. The question is was that apart of his normal motion. If it was not, then it is a balk. That is all I am saying. That is how I interpret the rules and this play the way it is described. You have the right to not agree with my opinion. I am calling a balk. You have said nothing to change my mind.

Remember this is also based on what you are thinking from the story.

Wrong there, too.

Well, guys; we have the final answer: PS2 doesn't care if he calls it correctly, and nothing anyone can say or write can change his mind.

BTW, I not only "have the right" to disagree with you, I have the duty to do so, 'cause you are 150% dead wrong.

Likely you are in an area w/o protests, 'cause you'd lose 'em if they had 'em.

I am not wrong at all. You just have a different view of the play than I do. You have yet to deal with the rule other than say it does not apply. That does not make any since from my standpoint. The rules say the motion must be normal. The motion does not sound normal. If the motion is not normal, it is a balk.

If you are going to have a protest, you have to give more information than it is wrong.

Having read this thread to this point, score one for CB.

This is beyond "point of view", this is "right and wrong" and CB is right.

There is no rule requiring F1 to deliver the same way each time.

Re: Re: Re: It is still a balk.
 

What interpretation? You are, quite simply, wrong. And looking for boogers.

Geez, man, how hard is it:
WHAT PART OF THAT RULE DO YOU SAY "applies"?

Ya' gotta actually read the words, IN THE ORDER THEY ARE WRITTEN, and figger out what they say.

WHERE in the rule you cite does it actually SAY "If the motion is not normal, it is a balk"? I'll help you out here: NOWHERE!!

Quoth you: "The rules say the motion must be normal"
Me: WHERE? Not in the rule you quoted. Read it: what words say THAT? That rule says, in fairly plain english, that it is a balk:
1. IF pitcher makes any motion as he habitually makes to pitch [Tony's F1 DID NOT make his "habitual" delivery}; AND
2. IF F1 THEN fails to deliver a pitch in an uninterrupted motion.[Tony's guy delivered, uninterrupted is an open question]

There is not a damn word in that rule that says that F1 can only use his "habitual" motion; nor a single word that even suggests that "the motion must be normal", or it's a balk.

Have you noticed that no-one agrees with you? Tony called the balk, but wasn't sure, and came here; and I'll bet you that, even if he still thinks that this F1 balked [and maybe he did, BECAUSE HE "PAUSED"], he doesn't agree [now, at least] with the BS you've been posting about "he has to use his usual motion".

CB is right. Listen to what everyone is saying.

1. No rule requires the pitcher to pitch with the same motion every time.

2. The rule you quoted requires the pitcher to come to the plate once he begins ANY motion you judge to be the start of the pitch. In the case under consideration, F1 DID come to the plate:
a. If he starts a pitching motion, then he must pitch.
b. He did start a pitching motion.
c. He did pitch.
Hence according to the rule that you have cited, there is no violation here, and so no balk.

3. The only issue in the case at hand, and again CB is right about this, is whether he paused too long. That's a different violation, and has nothing to do with "normal" or "habitual" or "usual" motion. And most of us are saying, you had to be there. For my part, it sounds like a legal pitch, but it is hard to know without seeing it.

It's ok to admit that you're wrong, you know. We're all fallible on this board, and you won't make any progress saying it's just a different viewpoint. If you stop learning, you're dead, so embrace life and learn!

Well,
 

If I could post to this thread (I cannot because Mr. OOO forbids me from being in his threads) I would comment that PS2 is waaay wrong.

There is no rule that says that F1 must deliver a pitch the same every time (if we didd that would eliminate the slide step), also a 'pause' in the motion does not equal a balk, and finally, IIITBTSB.

CB, Garth, mbyron, and Rich have it nailed , , , PS has taken a called third.

PS2Man,

Thanks for posting the (partial) text of the FED rule you were basing your ruling on:

"<i>"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</i>"

Seeing the actual wording of the rule, I am <b>still</b> compelled to agree with cb in <b>all</b> respects concerning his comments regarding the legality of the delivery.

What the rule <b>says</b> is that if a pitcher (who has come legally "set") makes <i>any movement</i> which indicates (to the umpire) that he has initiated his "delivery" he must <b>complete</b> his delivery without stopping (i.e. "in a continuous motion").

It says <b>nothing</b> about him being required to <b>complete</b> his delivery in the same/similar way he did a previous time.

What makes this <b>really</b> confusing (to me, anyway) is that <b>he's not even required to <i>"pitch to the batter"</i></b> following such an "habitual movement", despite what the wording obviously says. I say this because he may (as an alternative to delivering a pitch) make a pick-off throw or feint after making a movement with which he "habitually" initiates his delivery of a pitch to the batter (as long as he does so <b>legally</b>).

To summarize:

There is no requirement that the pitcher pitch to the batter or make a pick-off move the same way every time.

Doing something illegal in the delivery (e.g. coming to a complete stop after initiating a delivery) the same way every time does not legalize it.

As described, the only possible balk in officailtony's initial description is if the pitcher failed to meet the "continuous motion" requirement (in the umpire's judgement).

JM






[Edited by CoachJM on Apr 10th, 2005 at 11:01 PM]

Gents,
I just got back to read nearly all the replies. I want to thank PS and CB for their back and forth and Garth and Rich for expounding also.
I feel quite comfortable in saying I blew it based on the very good input by all. While I feel that at the time, I " saw " a discernable pause, I am now questioning whether I saw a pause or was just confused by his different motion. Actually based on what I have read, I'm sure I blew it. Fortunately, I can say my goof, did not cost this team the game ( that is really an issue I prefer not to deal with ), since I don't want my error to dictate the outcome of any game. I will tuck this one in my memory book and try to look for the correct signs of a balk and not judge on the things that are percieved instead of written in rules. Again, thanks for guiding me to understand where I went wrong on this one.

Re: Re: Re: Re: It is still a balk.
 

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.

Really?
 

That so?
You just don't read so good, do you? Not even your own stuff.

"Now that is what the rulebook says."
I'll ask again, tho' I don't really expect an answer: WHERE does the rulebook say that? In this reality, it actually doesn't, you know.

"Take it or leave it"

I'll leave it. Taking advice from someone who is illiterate, pathologically incapable of admitting error, stupid AND dishonest [Nah! I never said that he had to pitch the same way every time!] is always a bad idea.

PS2Man - 1 year's experience, repeated 22 times. It would be sad if it wasn't so freeking annoying.

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.

Last summer I had this situation, 18 year old players. R3 and R2, close game, middle inning, pitcher in the windup. He begins his motion and R3 starts for home. Pitcher sees this, stops his delivery, as if he is trying to decide if what to do and then quickly starts his throw home. By the time he threw home I have already called a balk, runner slides into the plate, the throw is wide and he would have been safe if a balk had not been called. This was on OBR rules game, so after calling the balk I had to hang in there with the pitch until it arrived. When asked, "Coach, he stopped and then started again". The only difference in the outcome was that R2 goes to 3rd due to the balk, and would not have otherwise.

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?

[Edited by cbfoulds on Apr 11th, 2005 at 01:00 AM]

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.

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

Look:
 

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

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:
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.

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).

Well,
 

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

Good job.

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

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:

* * * * * * * *

Points of Emphasis:
That would HAVE to work, wouldn't it?

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."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is still a balk.
 

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.

Hmmm,
 

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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It is still a balk.
 

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

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!

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.