Balk or not?

[Daryl H. Long]

F1, while in contact with the pitcher's plate, places his pitching hand on his mouth and then distinctly wipes off his pitching hand prior to its touching the ball. This happens (a) no one on base or (b) R1 on first.

What would you call and why?

**Warning: a philosophical rant might just follow.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 12:42 AM]

[akalsey]

In OBR, in either case, I'd award a ball to the batter unless the batter and all runners advanced one base. Reason? Because that's what 8.02(a)(1) says.

[Rich]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
F1, while in contact with the pitcher's plate, places his pitching hand on his mouth and then distinctly wipes off his pitching hand prior to its touching the ball. This happens (a) no one on base or (b) R1 on first.

What would you call and why?

**Warning: a philosophical rant might just follow.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 12:42 AM]

In FED this movement is interpreted as the start of the pitch -- it would be a ball or a balk, depending on if there are runners.

[Tim C]

According to the FED Case Book it is the start of a pitch and therefore a balk.

Of course "The Preacher" (I picture "The Preacher" in the terms of Robert Mitchum in 'Five Card Stud') makes up his own rules.

[David B]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
F1, while in contact with the pitcher's plate, places his pitching hand on his mouth and then distinctly wipes off his pitching hand prior to its touching the ball. This happens (a) no one on base or (b) R1 on first.

What would you call and why?

**Warning: a philosophical rant might just follow.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 12:42 AM]

Not. I know what the books says, but I also know the practical side of the game.

If I'm BU, I probably will tell him to do it before he steps on the mound.

If I'm PU I'll tell F2 to go tell him.

This would be the same as F1 moving his glove to give the signals again. I'm not interpreting that as a movement to pitch.

Thanks
David

[whatgameyouwatchinblue]

This would be the same as F1 moving his glove to give the signals again. I'm not interpreting that as a movement to pitch


Fed says this is a balk and you dont call it?

[Rich]

Originally posted by whatgameyouwatchinblue
This would be the same as F1 moving his glove to give the signals again. I'm not interpreting that as a movement to pitch


Fed says this is a balk and you dont call it?

You mean the glove movement everyone knows is the pitcher asking for the signs again? No, I wouldn't balk that. Nobody in my area would balk that.

[Tim C]

AGAIN Rich we differ,

We do not allow a pitcher to wipe off signs illegally.

We call that a balk. We call it at all levels and every time.

[David B]

Originally posted by whatgameyouwatchinblue
This would be the same as F1 moving his glove to give the signals again. I'm not interpreting that as a movement to pitch


Fed says this is a balk and you dont call it?

I guess I've worked too many college and summer semi-pro games or something, but it is never called around here for that.

Like Rich said, everyone knows what he's doing and its not a problem.

I have noticed that you don't see that as much in lower level ball including HS.

Thanks
David

[gobama84]

Originally posted by David B

I guess I've worked too many college and summer semi-pro games or something, but it is never called around here for that.

Like Rich said, everyone knows what he's doing and its not a problem.

I have noticed that you don't see that as much in lower level ball including HS.

Thanks
David

DUH!!! That's because they have different rules...

[Daryl H. Long]

Lots of answers but none entirely true.

My answer is as follows.

1.In windup position: The start of the pitch is relevant per rule 2-28-3 depending on the position of the pitchers hands.
a) Hands already together: Time of the pitch would be when starts movement to go to the mouth. If he stops and does not deliver the ball without interruption then with no runners it is an illegal pitch so award the batter a ball. If runner, then a balk. Award each runner 1 base.

b) Both hands at side: Ruling is same as (a).
c) One hand front, one hand side. Here the time of the pitch is not until the hands are brought together. If he goes to the mouth after bringing hands together then the ruling is same as (a).

But until the hands are brought together there is no restrictions to arm movement. If he goes to his mouth and distinctly wipes it off he has not violated 6-2-1e. Remember, in this rule the infraction is not going to the mouth, the infraction is applying spit to the ball which in the Sitch does not happen.

Instead it is 6-2-4 which addresses acts by the pitcher considered a balk while he is in contact with the pitchers plate. Going to the mouth is not specifically listed. Possibly we should apply 6-2-4c which references 6-1 and 6-2-1a-e. We have already proved above that 6-2-1 a-e has not been violated therefore the only rule left is 6-1. Reading 6-1 there is no prohibition. Now we are back to the prohibited because not allowed vs the allowed because not prohibited argument I am making in the Gorilla Stance string. That is, the NF allows some things under 6-1 but prohibits others. WE don't know which is which until they tell us. The rules should speak for themselves.

2. In the set position: The time of the pitch does not occur until the hands are brought together then a complete and discernable stop. If pitcher goes to his mouth after the stop then apply (1a) above. If before hands are brought together the answer is the same as during windup in (c) above.

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

You mean the glove movement everyone knows is the pitcher asking for the signs again? No, I wouldn't balk that. Nobody in my area would balk that.

But, In your first post you said, "In FED this movement is interpreted as the start of the pitch -- it would be a ball or a balk, depending on if there are runners."

You can't have it both ways. Movement is movement. What other movements do you allow and not call the balk. If I do not know which movements YOU will allow/prohibit how can I know which movements the NF will allow/Prohibit. That is my whole point in all these discussions.

BTW: I surmise you would not balk the glove movement for the same reason David B says, ie. there is movement everyone knows is not associated with the pitch. And from both your posts it sounds like a lot of umpires share this same philosophy just like I do.

But, while I disagree with NF interpretaion on this because they have either faulty logic or no rule support for thier case I am bound to call it like they want me to. In the meantime I will continue to try to change their mind.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 07:50 PM]

[Daryl H. Long]

Originally posted by Tim C
AGAIN Rich we differ,

We do not allow a pitcher to wipe off signs illegally.

We call that a balk. We call it at all levels and every time.

TimC,

When I umpire under NF rules I call the game how they want it called. IF NCAA, then according to their rules.

For the balks we have discussed, if FED says call them then I call them. For many situation I totally disagree with FED but I do not apply my own philosphy to the game.

As far as my own philosophy is concerned I always give rules support (verbatim from NF Rule book, not something I made up)for every ruling I post. Sometimes it shows I disagree with interpretations given by NF Rules committee. I do not accept their interps blindly just because they are the rules makers and I am not. That does not make me any less knowledgable than they are nor does it mean they can never make a mistake. And if anyone is offended that I question the rules committee, either those on the rules committee or anyone reading this forum, in my opinion they are either arrogant or ignorant.

You said in earlier post I was the one who makes up my own rules. It does not bother me what you think and I really do enjoy discussing our differences in a scholarly way. At least you try to explain yourself with rules citations.

But, I do have a final question for you. Who is it who really makes up their own rules? Me, who calls the game according to FED interps even though I believe them to be wrong...or...Rich and others who have admitted they ignore certain interps and call the game their way? Just think about it, that is all I ask.



[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 08:25 PM]

[David B]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long
[QUOTE
But, I do have a final question for you. Who is it who really makes up their own rules? Me, who calls the game according to FED interps even though I believe them to be wrong...or...Rich and others who have admitted they ignore certain interps and call the game their way? Just think about it, that is all I ask.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 08:25 PM]

There are many situations in umpiring this great game where accepted practice goes a looong way in determining what is called and what is not.

As a FED umpire, I follow FED rules, but if there is an accepted practice in my association and state, then I will follow that also.

As a group and as a state we enforce first movement commits the pitcher to pitch as stated in the rules; however, if the pitcher needs the signs again and give the "accepted practice" of moving the glove, we allow that.

I don't call it making up rules, simply going by what is accepted. If my state changes, then we'll go with that.

Thanks
David

[Rich]

Originally posted by Daryl H. Long

But, In your first post you said, "In FED this movement is interpreted as the start of the pitch -- it would be a ball or a balk, depending on if there are runners."

You can't have it both ways. Movement is movement. What other movements do you allow and not call the balk. If I do not know which movements YOU will allow/prohibit how can I know which movements the NF will allow/Prohibit. That is my whole point in all these discussions.

BTW: I surmise you would not balk the glove movement for the same reason David B says, ie. there is movement everyone knows is not associated with the pitch. And from both your posts it sounds like a lot of umpires share this same philosophy just like I do.

But, while I disagree with NF interpretaion on this because they have either faulty logic or no rule support for thier case I am bound to call it like they want me to. In the meantime I will continue to try to change their mind.

[Edited by Daryl H. Long on Apr 14th, 2005 at 07:50 PM]

I said what the rule was. Nowhere in my post did I say whether I'd call this balk. Where I live, I would NOT.