Gorilla Stance

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

I'm still balk-free after 10 games. Only 3 were HS games, but still.....

There are balks I COULD call on a regular basis, I'm sure. But there's gotta be some common sense in the application of all this. I mean, in my HS game tonight, it was 14-0 after 1 inning. When the pitcher stepped back in the windup position and made a motion associated with a pitch I could've balked it. Since I'm not the kind of guy who likes to pick the wings off of butterflies I simply had a conversation with the first base coach the next inning.

I like Wisconsin -- we get the balks we should get and leave the really picky ones to other states.

You did not say if the pitcher who balked was on the winning or losing team, but in either case it probably did no matter to either coach. If the winning run was on 3rd in a late inning what would you have done? Would this be a balk you should get, in Wisconsin?

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

You did not say if the pitcher who balked was on the winning or losing team, but in either case it probably did no matter to either coach. If the winning run was on 3rd in a late inning what would you have done? Would this be a balk you should get, in Wisconsin?

Of COURSE it matters, unless the coach is a rat. Anyone who is up 14-0 and argues for a picky balk is a rat, BTW.

Look, there are balks we all have to get -- the "doesn't come set" or the "starts and stops" balks come to mind. But many umpires seem to have an eagle eye on the pitcher just LOOKING to NAIL him with a balk call, and that isn't the right way to umpire, either.

If you're calling balks that don't need to be called with a team down 20 runs, well, you probably shouldn't.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by LDUB

That has to be the dumbest example ever. The rule also dosen't say anything the pitcher being alowed to have his jaw move if he is chewing gum. And yet the Federation allows this. What are they coming to?

No one on the field? Really? You sure? The ball is dead.

So you are ripping the FED for getting rid of a rule which you didn't like? What is wrong with this picture?

No I don't. I do have a problem with uneducated people who rant about how bad the Federation is.

[Edited by LDUB on Apr 12th, 2005 at 01:39 AM]

1. Dumb example or not at least mine was baseball related. But be that as it may you prove my point exactly. As I said earlier, in my previous conversations with NF people the very reason they gave for the prohibition was the absence of being specifically allowed. Yet, we can all come up with examples that are not "specifically allowed" but are in reality "allowed" by the NF. When they can not even apply their own LOGIC for the interpretations consistently then the integrity of the rules are compromised.

2. You seem shocked that the activities I mentioned pertaining to taking the fun out of the game are even a concern by the NF. Let this ol' uneducated person enlighten you.

The following rules are being cited to prohibit huddles and home plate celebrations even during DEAD BALL. These are cases where I actually lean toward faulting the local and State interpreters rather than NF. But I do not see the NF doing anything to stem the tide. They see it as a positive reaction to the POE which in turn will allow the NF to avoid rule legislation to quell celebrations.

Rule 3-3-1j
Case 3.3.1 Situation H (logic is that since the ruling specifically say "at all times" then this means during both live ball and dead ball.
Points of Emphasis: FIELD CONDUCT pg 67 NFHS Rule book.

Comment: Many wrongly think the purpose of the point of emphasis is to get the umpires to stop the teams from celebrating at home plate. I have talked to many interpreters at both the state and local levels and they all are under the impression that it is specifically prohibited and are telling umpires in their jurisdictions to not allow it. The interpreters tell me that is the way it was explained to them from the NF Rules committee.

The fact is, there is no prohibition to prevent a team from congratulating a home run hitter at home plate while the ball is dead. The prohibition is when the ball is alive. The purpose of the point of emphasis is to encourage sporting behavior during the dead ball while the team is at home plate.

3. Please do not confuse my "ripping the FED" to be synonomous to I think it is OK to ignore FED interpretaions and umpire games according to "my own rules".

While I disagree with the interpretation I will call a balk on any pitcher who goes into a "gorilla stance". That is the ruling per NFHS baseball rules Interpretations #5 found on NF web site.

I rip the FED when they make rulings based on faulty logic.
I rip the FED when they do not apply their LOGIC consistently.
I rip the FED for making rules too complex for lesser skilled players and for that matter for umpires who are so overwhelmed at their complexity.
I rip the FED when they make a rules interpretation which directly violate another rule.
I rip the FED when they CHANGE rules through Editorial CLarifications.

On the contrary, "ripping the FED" when necessary is what EDUCATED people do. It shows they have a passion for the integrity of the rules. It shows they have spent many hours in study, realizing how their intracasies and nuances are so intertwined with one another that they come together to form a perfect body. They realize that the prostitution of even one minute point can render the whole body to chaos. it is the educated person who tries to prevent this chaos.

Uneducated people accept whatever is told to them. They don't study. They don't question. They are blind.

With that in mind I make it my priority to study the rules that I may know them, then I can approve those interpretaions which are excellent and according to rule, and also disprove those which dishonor the purity of the rule. I am confident I can be a guide to the blind, and a light to those who are in darkness.

[Daryl H. Long]

I say Amen to what Rich has said in a few earlier posts. That is what my rant was about. Let's simplify the balk rule. Keep it basic. Get the obvious ones. If we have to be 'picky" or have to so analyze each and every movement with such great scrutiny then a balk should not be called.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

1. Dumb example or not at least mine was baseball related. But be that as it may you prove my point exactly. As I said earlier, in my previous conversations with NF people the very reason they gave for the prohibition was the absence of being specifically allowed. Yet, we can all come up with examples that are not "specifically allowed" but are in reality "allowed" by the NF. When they can not even apply their own LOGIC for the interpretations consistently then the integrity of the rules are compromised.

2. You seem shocked that the activities I mentioned pertaining to taking the fun out of the game are even a concern by the NF. Let this ol' uneducated person enlighten you.

The following rules are being cited to prohibit huddles and home plate celebrations even during DEAD BALL. These are cases where I actually lean toward faulting the local and State interpreters rather than NF. But I do not see the NF doing anything to stem the tide. They see it as a positive reaction to the POE which in turn will allow the NF to avoid rule legislation to quell celebrations.

Rule 3-3-1j
Case 3.3.1 Situation H (logic is that since the ruling specifically say "at all times" then this means during both live ball and dead ball.
Points of Emphasis: FIELD CONDUCT pg 67 NFHS Rule book.

Comment: Many wrongly think the purpose of the point of emphasis is to get the umpires to stop the teams from celebrating at home plate. I have talked to many interpreters at both the state and local levels and they all are under the impression that it is specifically prohibited and are telling umpires in their jurisdictions to not allow it. The interpreters tell me that is the way it was explained to them from the NF Rules committee.

The fact is, there is no prohibition to prevent a team from congratulating a home run hitter at home plate while the ball is dead. The prohibition is when the ball is alive. The purpose of the point of emphasis is to encourage sporting behavior during the dead ball while the team is at home plate.

3. Please do not confuse my "ripping the FED" to be synonomous to I think it is OK to ignore FED interpretaions and umpire games according to "my own rules".

While I disagree with the interpretation I will call a balk on any pitcher who goes into a "gorilla stance". That is the ruling per NFHS baseball rules Interpretations #5 found on NF web site.

I rip the FED when they make rulings based on faulty logic.
I rip the FED when they do not apply their LOGIC consistently.
I rip the FED for making rules too complex for lesser skilled players and for that matter for umpires who are so overwhelmed at their complexity.
I rip the FED when they make a rules interpretation which directly violate another rule.
I rip the FED when they CHANGE rules through Editorial CLarifications.

On the contrary, "ripping the FED" when necessary is what EDUCATED people do. It shows they have a passion for the integrity of the rules. It shows they have spent many hours in study, realizing how their intracasies and nuances are so intertwined with one another that they come together to form a perfect body. They realize that the prostitution of even one minute point can render the whole body to chaos. it is the educated person who tries to prevent this chaos.

Uneducated people accept whatever is told to them. They don't study. They don't question. They are blind.

With that in mind I make it my priority to study the rules that I may know them, then I can approve those interpretaions which are excellent and according to rule, and also disprove those which dishonor the purity of the rule. I am confident I can be a guide to the blind, and a light to those who are in darkness.

Hmmmmmmmm. Why do I have that itchy feeling? This is beginning to sound existential; Kafkaesque, even.

Methinks someone very clever is having his way with us.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

1. Dumb example or not at least mine was baseball related. But be that as it may you prove my point exactly. As I said earlier, in my previous conversations with NF people the very reason they gave for the prohibition was the absence of being specifically allowed. Yet, we can all come up with examples that are not "specifically allowed" but are in reality "allowed" by the NF. When they can not even apply their own LOGIC for the interpretations consistently then the integrity of the rules are compromised.

2. You seem shocked that the activities I mentioned pertaining to taking the fun out of the game are even a concern by the NF. Let this ol' uneducated person enlighten you.

The following rules are being cited to prohibit huddles and home plate celebrations even during DEAD BALL. These are cases where I actually lean toward faulting the local and State interpreters rather than NF. But I do not see the NF doing anything to stem the tide. They see it as a positive reaction to the POE which in turn will allow the NF to avoid rule legislation to quell celebrations.

Rule 3-3-1j
Case 3.3.1 Situation H (logic is that since the ruling specifically say "at all times" then this means during both live ball and dead ball.
Points of Emphasis: FIELD CONDUCT pg 67 NFHS Rule book.

Comment: Many wrongly think the purpose of the point of emphasis is to get the umpires to stop the teams from celebrating at home plate. I have talked to many interpreters at both the state and local levels and they all are under the impression that it is specifically prohibited and are telling umpires in their jurisdictions to not allow it. The interpreters tell me that is the way it was explained to them from the NF Rules committee.

The fact is, there is no prohibition to prevent a team from congratulating a home run hitter at home plate while the ball is dead. The prohibition is when the ball is alive. The purpose of the point of emphasis is to encourage sporting behavior during the dead ball while the team is at home plate.

3. Please do not confuse my "ripping the FED" to be synonomous to I think it is OK to ignore FED interpretaions and umpire games according to "my own rules".

While I disagree with the interpretation I will call a balk on any pitcher who goes into a "gorilla stance". That is the ruling per NFHS baseball rules Interpretations #5 found on NF web site.

I rip the FED when they make rulings based on faulty logic.
I rip the FED when they do not apply their LOGIC consistently.
I rip the FED for making rules too complex for lesser skilled players and for that matter for umpires who are so overwhelmed at their complexity.
I rip the FED when they make a rules interpretation which directly violate another rule.
I rip the FED when they CHANGE rules through Editorial CLarifications.

On the contrary, "ripping the FED" when necessary is what EDUCATED people do. It shows they have a passion for the integrity of the rules. It shows they have spent many hours in study, realizing how their intracasies and nuances are so intertwined with one another that they come together to form a perfect body. They realize that the prostitution of even one minute point can render the whole body to chaos. it is the educated person who tries to prevent this chaos.

Uneducated people accept whatever is told to them. They don't study. They don't question. They are blind.

With that in mind I make it my priority to study the rules that I may know them, then I can approve those interpretaions which are excellent and according to rule, and also disprove those which dishonor the purity of the rule. I am confident I can be a guide to the blind, and a light to those who are in darkness.

So much to correct, so little time. Maybe after I finish my taxes.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

1. Dumb example or not at least mine was baseball related. But be that as it may you prove my point exactly. As I said earlier, in my previous conversations with NF people the very reason they gave for the prohibition was the absence of being specifically allowed. Yet, we can all come up with examples that are not "specifically allowed" but are in reality "allowed" by the NF. When they can not even apply their own LOGIC for the interpretations consistently then the integrity of the rules are compromised.

2. You seem shocked that the activities I mentioned pertaining to taking the fun out of the game are even a concern by the NF. Let this ol' uneducated person enlighten you.

The following rules are being cited to prohibit huddles and home plate celebrations even during DEAD BALL. These are cases where I actually lean toward faulting the local and State interpreters rather than NF. But I do not see the NF doing anything to stem the tide. They see it as a positive reaction to the POE which in turn will allow the NF to avoid rule legislation to quell celebrations.

Rule 3-3-1j
Case 3.3.1 Situation H (logic is that since the ruling specifically say "at all times" then this means during both live ball and dead ball.
Points of Emphasis: FIELD CONDUCT pg 67 NFHS Rule book.

Comment: Many wrongly think the purpose of the point of emphasis is to get the umpires to stop the teams from celebrating at home plate. I have talked to many interpreters at both the state and local levels and they all are under the impression that it is specifically prohibited and are telling umpires in their jurisdictions to not allow it. The interpreters tell me that is the way it was explained to them from the NF Rules committee.

The fact is, there is no prohibition to prevent a team from congratulating a home run hitter at home plate while the ball is dead. The prohibition is when the ball is alive. The purpose of the point of emphasis is to encourage sporting behavior during the dead ball while the team is at home plate.

3. Please do not confuse my "ripping the FED" to be synonomous to I think it is OK to ignore FED interpretaions and umpire games according to "my own rules".

While I disagree with the interpretation I will call a balk on any pitcher who goes into a "gorilla stance". That is the ruling per NFHS baseball rules Interpretations #5 found on NF web site.

I rip the FED when they make rulings based on faulty logic.
I rip the FED when they do not apply their LOGIC consistently.
I rip the FED for making rules too complex for lesser skilled players and for that matter for umpires who are so overwhelmed at their complexity.
I rip the FED when they make a rules interpretation which directly violate another rule.
I rip the FED when they CHANGE rules through Editorial CLarifications.

On the contrary, "ripping the FED" when necessary is what EDUCATED people do. It shows they have a passion for the integrity of the rules. It shows they have spent many hours in study, realizing how their intracasies and nuances are so intertwined with one another that they come together to form a perfect body. They realize that the prostitution of even one minute point can render the whole body to chaos. it is the educated person who tries to prevent this chaos.

Uneducated people accept whatever is told to them. They don't study. They don't question. They are blind.

With that in mind I make it my priority to study the rules that I may know them, then I can approve those interpretaions which are excellent and according to rule, and also disprove those which dishonor the purity of the rule. I am confident I can be a guide to the blind, and a light to those who are in darkness.

Hmmmmmmmm. Why do I have that itchy feeling? This is beginning to sound existential; Kafkaesque, even.

Methinks someone very clever is having his way with us.

Hell, Carl, when I first read that last paragraph, I thought: "This sounds like the forward to next year's BRD."

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
The fact is, there is no prohibition to prevent a team from congratulating a home run hitter at home plate while the ball is dead. The prohibition is when the ball is alive. The purpose of the point of emphasis is to encourage sporting behavior during the dead ball while the team is at home plate.

If you know that, why did you say no one was allowed on the field? Why are you making up rules to make the FED look bad?

[Tim C]

I was talkin' to your brothers . . . never mind old joke.

You are one funny dude.

If I read your stuff correctly you said you talked to NF "people" . . .

Did ya talk to Elliot, or Kyle, or maybe Brewer?

Just want to talk to the same folks you did and check your information.

Just post who ya talked to, thanks in advance.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by LDUB

If you know that, why did you say no one was allowed on the field? Why are you making up rules to make the FED look bad?

I didn't say I did not allow the home plate celebrations. In fact on Manday after a towering home run I did allow the team to come out and celebrate at home plate. Why, because it is not prohibited.

All I am saying is there are a lot of umpires I have talked to (and umpired with) who believe that given 2005 Field Conduct POE and how it was emphasised in their local and state meetings that it is prohibited.

But I added this example to a balk thread to empasise a point:

There are balks that NF wants called by reasoning it is not allowed per pitching rule.
Conversely, Plate celebrations are allowed because there is no prohibition per rule.

So when I see something not specifically covered in the rule book do I
1.Prevent it because not allowed, or
2. Allow it because not prohibited??????

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Tim C
I was talkin' to your brothers . . . never mind old joke.

You are one funny dude.

If I read your stuff correctly you said you talked to NF "people" . . .

Did ya talk to Elliot, or Kyle, or maybe Brewer?

Just want to talk to the same folks you did and check your information.

Just post who ya talked to, thanks in advance.

Tim,

I have been umpiring for 25 years. My conversations with the FED people happened in the mid to late 80's. When I originally posted I struggled mightily with just saying "FED people" because I know too many officials who are name droppers. But I saw no other way to address my point.

I can only be honest and tell you I cannot remember specifically who I talked to then (it may have been Brice Durbin, or John Hilsenteger, or Marty Ondrovic) nor do I have the letter (from Brad Rumble) sent to me with their explanations.

As you mentioned, maybe Kyle or Elliott or Brewer can shed some light on the direction the rules committee is going pertaining to balks. Since I do not know them I will give them the benefit of the doubt they can show me rules support for a prohibition to pitcher's actions that is a more concrete answer than "not specifically allowed'.

I wrote to NF for 10 straght years to address the balk rule. Finally I gave up. Now, low and behold they finally ease up a little in 2005. At that rate the next time NF may ease up again on balks will be 2030. (last sentence just a little joke).

Back then no forum, no e-mail, or other avenues like this to guage the sentiment of other umpires on this very same topic. With slow mail more often that not I never received a reply.

If you think my rant was over the top a little then I can accept that and apolgize. I work softball, basketball, and football also and my current pet peeve with the basketball rules committee far surpasses my problems with baseball.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
SNIP///

But I added this example to a balk thread to empasise a point:

There are balks that NF wants called by reasoning it is not allowed per pitching rule.
Conversely, Plate celebrations are allowed because there is no prohibition per rule.

So when I see something not specifically covered in the rule book do I
1.Prevent it because not allowed, or
2. Allow it because not prohibited??????

See, there's your poblem: the gorilla arm is specifically prohibited by rule [complete with penalty - balk] - pitcher's arm must be @ his side or behind his back. Only, until this year damn near no-one called it, 'cause it's a "don't do that" in OBR. As far as I can recollect, there are no "unenumerated" balks in the FED canon: every balk is for violation of a specific requirement or prohibition; thus if it's not outlawed, it's permitted.

Choose 2.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

See, there's your poblem: the gorilla arm is specifically prohibited by rule [complete with penalty - balk] - pitcher's arm must be @ his side or behind his back. Only, until this year damn near no-one called it, 'cause it's a "don't do that" in OBR. As far as I can recollect, there are no "unenumerated" balks in the FED canon: every balk is for violation of a specific requirement or prohibition; thus if it's not outlawed, it's permitted.

Choose 2.

CB
I see three separate points in you post to address so I will do so individually instead of in one long post.

1. I do not admit that in the gorilla stance the arm is in front. I say it is still at his side so he conforms with the rule. If any part of the arm conforms to the rule then pitcher is OK. Can a pitcher get his WHOLE arm behind his back. NO. Try it. I would bet no matter how hard you try the only part of your arm you can get behind your back is from the elbow to the tip of the fingers. If he can conform to that part of the rule with only a portion of his arm actually behind his back then we have to conclude if only a portion of the arm is at his side he also conforms.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
[[/B]

See, there's your poblem: the gorilla arm is specifically prohibited by rule [complete with penalty - balk] - pitcher's arm must be @ his side or behind his back. Only, until this year damn near no-one called it, 'cause it's a "don't do that" in OBR. As far as I can recollect, there are no "unenumerated" balks in the FED canon: every balk is for violation of a specific requirement or prohibition; thus if it's not outlawed, it's permitted.

Choose 2. [/B][/QUOTE]

2: As far as no one calling gorilla stance a balk until this year let me give you a little history. Last year (2004) the NF rules committee added three little words to Rule 6-1-2. The last sentence in the article currently reads: During delivery, he may lift his non-pivot foot in a step forward, A STEP SIDEWAYS, or in a step backward and a step forward, but he shall not otherwise lift either foot. They added a step sideways. Why the rules change?

You can find the reason on page 7 of the NFHS / Referee baseball guide 2004 under the bold heading SIDEWAYS STEP IS LEGAL. Reason given: "Previous coverage did not include a sideways step, although it has always been allowed by umpires."

In layman terms the FED is saying that the sideways step previously was a balk (ie not allowed in the rules) but since the umpires were allowing it (or not calling it) they legalized the move.

You said yourself that umpires were not calling the gorilla stance a balk until this year. If the NF can legalize the sideways step because no one was calling it a balk they can legalize the gorilla stance also for the same reason.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
[/B]

See, there's your poblem: the gorilla arm is specifically prohibited by rule [complete with penalty - balk] - pitcher's arm must be @ his side or behind his back. Only, until this year damn near no-one called it, 'cause it's a "don't do that" in OBR. As far as I can recollect, there are no "unenumerated" balks in the FED canon: every balk is for violation of a specific requirement or prohibition; thus if it's not outlawed, it's permitted.

Choose 2. [/B][/QUOTE]

3: There are no "unenumerated" balks?

Situation: F1, while in contact with the pitcher's plate, places his pitching hand on his mouth and then distictly wipes off the pitching hand before touching the ball? What do you as the umpire call?

I am going to start this as a separate thread also to guage what other umpires would do.