Sigh, runner on 2nd, pitcher takes sign, rolls his glove to get the signal again. I called the balk. The rat comes out to ask why this is a balk. I tell him he cant do that when in contact to the rubber. He tells me to watch baseball tonight and that i will see this all night long. I say thats mlb this is fed, in fed this is a balk. he then asks me why we didnt go over this in the rules clinic. I told him its not our job to teach him the rules. He walked off shaking his head.

I mostly only do fed ball, i've always known this was a balk in fed and always was ready to call it. But if i hadnt read this damn board today i dont think the pitcher would have ever done that. The gods were testing me tonight.

OOO

its in the case book
 

what other rules do you ignore???

i dont agree with it but im going to call it.

Also why does calling a rule in the book make me a OOO.

your the one choosing what rule you will and wont inforce.

did you read the baseball guide 2005 from the NFHS.

Last sentence of the "doing right for the right reason"
article.

TO do less-to fail to keep current or the be the maverick who says,"My way no matter what"- cheats everyone.

by saying that im an OOO and that you dont call what is in the fed rule book makes you sound like a so called "big dog" that will not call it the way the fed wants. and that you will call the game the way you see fit!

[Edited by whatgameyouwatchinblue on Apr 15th, 2005 at 01:34 AM]

I agree with you, W. Gotta call 'em like FED wants you to call 'em. Balk.

Sigh
 

Let's see, you had everyone in the dugouts at all times, and the base coaches always stayed in their boxes, and you made sure that the on-deck box was 5 ft in diameter and located 37 feet to the side of home plate. (space permitting) and for sure you didn't allow a pitcher to warm up for more than one minute etc., etc.,

That's completely ridiculous.

Have a nice season, just don't come down here to call any games.

thanks
David

I will not argue with anyone about what the FED wants. They say it's a balk then it's a balk.


But here's reality; I have 3 varsity fields in my officiating area with lights. When the FED puts all the games on those fields, then I will call all the balks in the book. Until then, I keep the game moving and call what is a real balk!

Uh, what?

So --- the lack of lights means you alter the balk rules?

I missed that at my clinic. :)

No I mean that the whole thing about balks is becoming anal!

It is an accepted practice at every level that an out stretched pitcher waiving his glove in a curcular motion is signaling for a new or repeat sign from the catcher. I repeat - accepted practice - not accepted rule.

When this motion is occuring, F1's focus is on the catcher and nothing else.

And umpire that calls this a balk (in my humble opinion) should never be allowed out of t-ball!!

Very sorry if I piss off some people but that's the way it is!

ad finis

Ozzy
 

Then "all" umpires in my association (about 170 at last count) will be filling the t-ball fields soon.

OZ I would think that is an uncomfortable position you are taking.

Ok, after reading last post I think this balk call might be anal, but your statement about lights implies something completely different.

[Edited by scyguy on Apr 15th, 2005 at 10:27 AM]

Hey Tee,
I've got the plate. I think I can handle moving the t out of the runners way.

I'm calling that a balk all the time!!!!

let me get this straight, this is a balk because:

1 since he is on rubber, pitching regs have begun

2 he has assumed windup with both hands together in front of body

so, the problem is that he has started his motion by moving his glove and not contiuing the motion. Correct??

its in the case book
 

rule 6.1.2 situation d: F1, while on the pitchers plate in either the windup or set position, a) adjusts his cap or b) shakes off the signal with his glove, or c) shakes off the signal with his head. Ruling In a) and b) this is an illegal pitch or a balk if there are runners on base. THese are movements of the arms or legs not associated with the pitch, in c) this is legal.
Fed.

Ozz -- accepted by WHOM?

Accepted by MLB, obviously... but they use a different rule set. Accepted by any OBR area, actually. But in FED,...

Accepted by YOU, obviously. Perhaps it's apparently accepted in your area, for some reason (habit, laziness, lack of proper lighting, I don't know...)

But not accepted in any area I've been in, and apparently not accepted in the FED areas that most of the other posters here work in.

The reason for my first post, though, was a friendly snark on what sounds to me to be a more ominous problem. It sounded like you were implying that as some sort of protest to the lack of proper lighting (or lack of enough fields ... not sure which one your complaint was really about), your umpires are selectively not calling balks that are called everywhere else. If that's not what you meant to imply, please grace us with an explanation of why the lighting/fields comment was even included in this discussion.

In my "nape of the neck" this is not called. And before I get "what other rules aren't you calling today" line I agree as per Fed. that it is a balk. If the powers that be want it called than by all means call it. Personally I don't see it as being deceptive everyone knows (at least in my area) that the pitcher is asking for another signal. Where I'm at if I called it I'd be accused of "nit picking". Sort of like Coaches sitting on their buckets outside the dugout. By rule they should be in the dugout. However if they get taken out by a foul ball. Hey it's only one less guy that I gotta deal with. LOL

hmm
 

Im sure someone is going to call me OOO again but here we go.

In my "nape of the neck" we are required to keep live ball area cleaned up. Including coaches on buckets. In fact we dont have a problem with coaches on buckets, they know they need to be in the dead ball area.

letting a coach keep his bucket in a live ball area can cause way more problems than telling a coach to sit on the bucket in dead ball.

This is exactly why I quit playing Monopoly years ago. Everyone wants to make up their own rules. Play by the written rule or start your own "FED". Oh, I'm sorry, looks like some of you have already done that.

Re: hmm
 

Hey, If it's common practice where you work than you should keep the Coaches out of the live ball area. If it's common practice where you work to balk waving off the signal with the glove than you should balk the pitcher. Where I work this is OOO.

gordon
 

Please direct me to the FED ruling that says we consider "past practice" or area "habit". I'll even post it here if you lead me that way.

Read the POEs Gordon . . . especially the one about Professionalism.

Re: gordon
 

There is none. You know that. I also know what happens when the Salmon makes it up river.

Would it be out of line to give a warning to both teams the first time I see that glove-for-a-new-sign move (I confess, I have not seen that yet in two years - I only do high school ball )? I want to enforce the rules, but that is one I'm guessing most kids don't know. Just asking. If not, I accept the wisdom of the balk call because it is a FED rule. I hope I never see it. Takes me off the hook for being OOO in some eyes.

Re: gordon
 

Tee,

Somebody's record is broken, isn't it? Please let me know how your effort to keep coaches in their boxes is going sometime.

--Rich

Ouch. That hurt. I'm going to go cry now.

Well,
 

Rich:

I have never even tried to keep a coach in his box. You know that . . .

The fun of this discussion is that as little as a year ago I was a "common/sense and fair play" guy . . . do you think anyone has yet to notice the difference.

It is rainy and cloudy and I have the bases in three hours.

ick!

Re: Well,
 

I still think you are trying to show the ridiculousness of some of these idiotic rules, but I may be wrong.

70 and sunny here with no games until tomorrow. College DH, where I know I won't have to worry about anything more than the designated hitter rule :)

--Rich

i never said i agreed with the rule. i was told from my comish that we will call by the book. It also seems that pretty much the state of Oregon is on this also. I know tee is in Portland, Im down on the southcoast.

In tonights game my partner called a balk on the Gorilla stance a half second before i could call it. The coach comes flyin out of the dug out and yells to his pitcher, "damn it Bret how many times is that gonna get called before you figure it out".

As the coach was walking by me in the half inning he told me the same thing was called on him the week before in the valley. A whole nother assoc.

Thats good stuff.

Also i did not say i keep coaches in dead ball or in the box. I said i kept those damn buckets in dead ball.

First we read: <b>"i (sic) was told from (sic) my comish that we will call by the book."</B>

Then we read: <b>"Also i (sic) did not say i (sic) keep coaches in dead ball or in the box."</b>

Which is it?

My association hosts a meeting with all the area coaches. This season, I was in charge. As the rules interpreter, likely I'll be in charge next season as well.

This year I specifically went over 6.1.2d. During scrimmages we instructed our umpires to remind the coaches of the NFHS ruling. Of course, that play has been in the casebook since 1998!

We have new head coaches every year, so we carefully cover the NFHS balk regulations. These new guys, often straight from some college team, are generally surprised by the specificity of FED balk rules.

When an out-of-area team comes to call, we always warn the pitchers -- more than once. (We want them to come back. So do the home town coaches.)

Our experience is that when coaches and pitchers <i>know</i> what the umpires will enforce, they stay away from infractions.

Finally, we believe that when we don't enforce the rules (where there's no wiggle room), we do our teams a disservice when they leave the area.

Don't misunderstand: We ignore plenty of rules. Everybody does. David B, while wrong about <i>this</i> - grin -, points out that fact very well.

Before you get uptight and start yelling that I'm always ignoring some rule that I don't like, recognize the rules I'm talking about here are the <i>proprietary</I> rules, those that are unique to the NFHS.

I can list a few:<ol><li>penalty for touching ball with illegal glove</li><li>no pick-off from the wind-up</li><li>DH bats for any player</li><li>moving two hands simultaneously on the rubber is the start of a pitch</li><li>step with both feet into dead-ball territory kills play and live runners get one base</li><li>jewelry and associated 3-3-1 infractions</li><li>dead ball appeals</li><li>hurdling over defensive players</li><li>Etc.</ol>People who believe enforcing those rules is OOO should rethink their commitment to the rule of law.


[Edited by Carl Childress on Apr 16th, 2005 at 11:29 PM]

OK, OK. Only 4 probably wouldn't get any attention around here.

BTW, I was working a college DH today and saw my first really obnoxious gorilla arm. Interesting -- I couldn't see what it did for him, actually.

alright ill bite, Im a blue collar worker who likes to work ball in his spare time, So to make you feel superior what does (sic) mean?

I dont believe that im an OOO. We feel we do teams a diservice if we dont call these kinds of balks in regular season. Once post season begins they will be called. No warnings. '

The turning point for me was last football season. Keeping the coaches off the field was not a priority. Until i keeped getting knicked on my eval. It was easier for me to keep the coaches of the field than it was to miss a playoff assingment for not enforcing a simple rule.

Literally, the Latin word Sic is translated as "thus." However, it is often inserted in parenthesis (sic),
to call attention to the fact that some inaccuracy, mispelling or the like has been literally copied. When one reproduces the writings of another, he will often place (sic) after a such a mistake to indicate that the mistake was made in the original writing.

My question, I guess wasn't clear enough. You state the you will call by the book. Then you give an example of something you will ignore. I simply questioned your consistency. How can you claim you call by the book when you provide evidence that you do not?

WGYWB,

It looks like GarthB has put on his Substitute Teacher English Endorsement hat. :-) He's indicating that the grammar and/or spelling errors in the quote are not his. They were made by the original writer.

Actually, I learned that in a high school social studies class. I didn't know it took a scholar to understand it's usage. I'll try harder to blend in Craig. I would never wish to offend you.

Actually, when you wrote "I didn't know it took a scholar to understand it's (sic) usage," you gave a perfect example for anyone wanting to use "sic."

ROTFLOL!

okey dokey
 

not gonna turn into another pissin match. Is it Garth?

What i meant by call it by the book was in regards to the balks.

What i meant about keeping coaches in the dead ball area was in regards to the buckets. not the coaches.

I have seen a few OOO and im not even close. Call what you want, but in my area we dont warn past preseason.

<i>I, Garth Benham, do hereby swear and affirm that Carl Childress is always correct in any issue, discussion, disagreement, philosophy whether he has freaking clue of what he is talking about or not and whether or not he is being honest or not. Be it known by all persons that they should accept his word on everything and it matters not what anyone else thinks or believes. Carl is God.</i>

C'mon Garth, add that to your signature! :)

GarthB,

I'm hardly offended, <b> but it seems that you might be.</b> Notice that I included a smiley face after suggesting you were putting on your Substitute Teacher English Endorsement hat.

The fact that you added (sic) into the quote struck me as funny after reading your interaction with Carl C regarding your teaching credentials/endorsements.

Since your inclusion of (sic) didn't do anything but point out his grammar mistakes, it appeared to be OOO of the grammar type. If you can't see that and get a smile out of it, you might need to get some rest.

Re: okey dokey
 

No pissing contest...I didn't understand your reference to the coaches, that's all.

As for the glove deal that started this thread, we have been instructed by our FED clincian not to call it. He stated, "It's a traditional sign by the pitcher for another run of the signals, no one in the park misunderstands it."

That's an idea.

Literally, the Latin word Sic is translated as "thus." However, it is often inserted in parenthesis (sic),
to call attention to the fact that some inaccuracy, mispelling or the like has been literally copied. When one reproduces the writings of another, he will often place (sic) after a such a mistake to indicate that the mistake was made in the original writing.

My question, I guess wasn't clear enough. You state the<font color = red>(sic)</font> you will call by the book. [/B][/QUOTE]:D

Carl good points. Since we start playoffs this week, I spent part of yesterday going over some of these points with some of our veteran umpires.

Most agreed that they have called the "gorilla" arm movement, but they have warned about the glove movement (about the rollover of the signs). We have all called and will continue to that movement of both hands/arms is the beginning of the pitch.

We agreed that we will continue that practice next week in the playoffs since most of the teams coming in will be from out of our area and we really don't know what they've had called during the season.

As you note so well, we like our returning customers.

However, as you know, if a coach wants to press the issue (like he actually knows the rule), then we have an obligation to call it.

Thanks
David

huh
 

Most agreed that they have called the "gorilla" arm movement, but they have warned about the glove movement (about the rollover of the signs). We have all called and will continue to that movement of both hands/arms is the beginning of the pitch.

We agreed that we will continue that practice next week in the playoffs since most of the teams coming in will be from out of our area and we really don't know what they've had called during the season.


And theres the problem with picking and choosing what balks your gonna call. What happens when one of the teams you service goes out of your cover area and gets balked for rolling his glove? Then that umpires gonna here from that coach that has never been called in his home area.

Regarding rolling the glove when the pitcher is unsure of the sign, I can think of a good umpire reason that you might want to ignore this balk. If the pitcher makes a pitch that the catcher is not prepared to catch, who pays the price?

You the umpire, that's who. We're the one that gets nailed with a fast ball when the catcher thought a curve was coming. As far as I'm concerned, anything that the pitcher and catcher have to do to get on the same sheet of music is in my best interest so I'm not going to penalize them. A mild warning will do, because if I call a balk, the pitcher might guess on the signal the next time he's not sure.

I certainly have to disagree with your reasoning here. If the only way the pitcher can acknowledge he needs a new signal is to wave his glove ( illegaly under FED rules ), then he is in trouble anyway. A simple shake of the head would suffice or he can say " give it to me again " or any other multitude of ways would be much more appropriate - and legal. Allowing him an illegal move on the premise that you are protecting yourself from an improperly chosen and unsuspected pitch is weak reasoning.
Unfortunately, you are admitting that you are not abiding by FED rules because you state yourself " . . .you might want to ignore the balk . . ". You freely admit that this is a balk and you are not going to call it. I oppose that reasoning and hope you would reconsider your thinking on this.

My first sport is football and the underlying philosophy there is "no harm, no foul." When you can explain to me how the pitcher gains an advantage by waving his arm, I'll reconsider my position.

Till then, my well being is more important than the rules, and my interests are best served by having the pitcher and catcher communicating. Why call a balk when a simple warning will do and frankly, I rarely see a hand wave in FED ball.

My response to you would be that it is not up to me or anyone else to explain the reasoning behind FED rules. When you accept the responsibility of umpiring, you accept the responsibiity of upholding the rules. That would be ALL rules. Not just the ones you like or believe in. I have learned a lot in reading posts on this forum and one thing I have learned is that questioning the logic of a FED rule is useless, upholding the rule is vital. If nothing else it assures consistency among umpires so that when a pitcher does get called for that balk ( and he WILL eventually get called for it by a responsible umpire ), his excuse of " I did it last week and it didn't get called a balk " will sound just as silly as saying that because he stood on the rubber and puled the ball from his glove and threw it back in 3 or 4 times, that is not a balk either. You are not doing any pitcher a favor by not calling this a balk. You want to give a warning, that is your perogative. But if he persists, it's a balk. Certainly only my humble opinion.

So Tony, you call the rules like FED wants them. All the rules, right.

So tell me, and be completely honest, you call a pitch six inches above the belt a strike? Even if only a little tiny bottom portion of the ball were to pass through an imaginary line that is half way between the shoulders and the waistline, you call that a strike right? Because FED is just ever so happy to change any rules it sees fit and their definition of the strike zone says half way between the shoulders and the waistline?

Well . . . I try to be consistent with my strike zone. I cannot say that all those pitches are called strikes. But aren't those calls judgment calls? Is that what we are talking about when we discuss this glove movement thing? Or are we talking about a pretty clear act on which no judgment is applied other than yep he waved the glove to get a new sign? Is there any middle ground there that could be disputed as not really a wave of the glove? I'm not sure you are comparing apples with apples. I really don't want to switch gears on this post. Otherwise we could talk about coaches outside the box ( pretty clear there. No judgment - either he is in or out of the box ),Celebration after a home run, etc. I guess because there was a discussion about this and the gorilla arm in our association meeting, I feel the importance was placed on it and it needs to be called. As I said, in my humble opinion. I would add that I am also going to give a warning on this before I call it a balk. But the 2nd time in the same game - balk.
I will answer your question another way though. I do let some things slide, even though I know I shouldn't. However, on judgment issues like balls and strikes, interference and obstruction, etc. I try to be very consistent. Am I wrong? Entirely possible. I would admit that freely. But I strive to be better with each call in each game.

C'mon, you know the size of the strike zone isn't relevant. Throughout this thread, most posters have made it clear the rules they are discussing that must be enforced are those <i>peculiar</i> to FED.

For example, if you don't think the time of the pitch in your NFHS game should occur when a pitcher intentionally on the pitcher's plate moves both hands, that's your right.

But you shouldn't call FED ball. Knowing that proprietary rule and announcing you won't call it is dishonest, isn't it? What do you say when the other coach arrives in your face and asks: "Isn't that balk?"</quote>
You may "rarely see a hand wave in FED ball" because other umpires in your area are enforcing the rules. Others from different parts of the country have had different experiences.

Like you, several posters have mentioned giving a warning for the hand wave. That's no big deal, depending on when the warning is given.

But the disturbing comment is: "My well being is more important than the rules." I trust that's simply hyperbole. I'm certain your association wouldn't want you officiating games where <i>your</i> safety was the paramount issue.

How strict are you about batters unintentionally throwing the bat? We all know that's an official team warning. But the umpire must judge whether the trajectory of the bat warrants the definition of "throw." I take it from your insistence that your well-being comes first means that a batter gets penalized <i>whenever</i> the bats leaves his hand other than in a straight drop.

I appreciate where you're coming from, but when you start talking about calling all the rules the way FED wants them, you open up a real can of worms.

If you are insisting on calling all of FED's rules, then do you call a pitch that is four inches above the belt a strike? I mean the whole ball is clearly just inside that midway point between the shoulders and the waist. It's a strike by FED rules. And don't give me the whole, it's a judgement thing. You and I both know that you can tell where that ball comes in with a good degree of accuracy.

So are you faithful to all the FED rules or do you just pick and choose which ones you gonna call because you might get some $#!t in your area if you tried?

I think given your stance on the rules that is a fair and legitimate question.

Carl, with all due respect, if Tony is insisting on calling all the FED rules then the size of the strike zone is a legitimate question.

If FED doesn't want the high strike called, why is it still on the books? They clearly have no trouble differentiating themselves from OBR. Why wouldn't they change the strike zone defintion if that's not how they wanted it called?

Kaliix: Bringing up the strike zone is known as a "red herring." <i>That has nothing to do with the rules.</i> If an umpire gets a <i>rule</i> wrong, the game is subject to protest. We know that strike/ball, safe/out, fair/foul are judgment and thus not subject to protest. If you call a runner safe at first, does that mean you misinterpreted a rule when it can be shown he did not beat the throw?

Tony (and I and others) is arguing that "waving the glove" is, by rule, a balk in a game played under NFHS rules.

What do you think?

I sat down and started thinking about my reply to Bob and realized I am being hypocritical. If I want others to call ALL the FED rules, I must first call all the FED rules. And as I said in a recent reply to Kaliix - I don't. SO I withdraw my earlier reply to Bob and respond with this concept.
I believe the Balk is important because FED and my association want it to be important. So for that reason, I will call it. As I said probably a warning and then the balk call.
If my association made an issue out of coaches staying in the coach's box, then I would enforce that. But it has never been a point of contention - even during evaluations.
On judgment issues, I repeat, that it is a different area completely and better debated in another post. But this issue is clearly NOT a judgment issue in terms of the act occuring.

Sidenote: been hit with a thrown bat as PU and I can tell you, I enforce that one EVERY time. Don't like it. Won't tolerate it. My pet peeve. I guess many of us look at some rules in a different light - possibly due to personal experience or instruction.

Again in my humble opinion.

Re: huh
 

Sorry but it ain't gonna happen. If any thing gets called its going to be in our area. The rest of our state is much more lenient than our area.

That's why coaches like to have our group calling their games in the playoffs. They know what they are going to get year after year.

I guess the bottom line is that we call the things that matter to the game. Something as picky as a glove movement which is only called in FED "some of the time" is just not that big of a deal.

Someone made the analogy to football, well I also call basketball and its a LOT more that way in basketball. We call it advantage/disadvantage. How is the pitcher putting the defense at a disadvantage when everyone in the ballpark knows what he is doing.

I'll stop now with being the devil's advocate as far as this matter. Its just not that big a deal.

Now something that did matter - big game Friday night to decide who makes it to the 5A playoffs and F6 tells stealing R1 that the pitch was a foul ball. Stupid R1 starts back to first. I call time out (quickly)

F6 wants to know who called time, I said I did. Its a 1-0 game in the 6th inning, I'm not going to give R1 third with verbal interference, but by calling time we preserved the integrity of the game IMO. And no one ever knew what had happened except for F6 and myself.

Now would you send him to third? I think we did the right thing. And we didn't have to eject any coaches.

Thanks
David

did F6 *know* it wasnt a foul ball, or was it a mistake? If he deliberately said foul ball when he knew it wasnt, that runner is standing on 3d.

That was the old rule. This is verbal obstruction, and the proper award is as it would be for any obstruction. Here the runner would get second, and the umpire would give a team warning.

OOO
 

Let's see . . . almost 3,300 games in my books and,

I have NEVER considered implimenting the old "thrown bat rule."

I do NOT disregard it, I just have never seen a situation that has caused me to EVEN think about it.

I concentrate on more important things during my games.

<b>Sidenote: been hit with a thrown bat as PU and I can tell you, I enforce that one EVERY time. Don't like it. Won't tolerate it. My pet peeve. I guess many of us look at some rules in a different light - possibly due to personal experience or instruction.
</b>

Are you referring to FED 7-4-6, second sentence?

GarthB,
If you meant 7-3-6, that is not the rule I would reference for ejecting a player who throws his bat in the context to which I made reference. It does not happen very often ( obviously ), but I have had it happen twice in the last three years. It was lower level travel ball in the summer. This was a batter who let his bat fly after hitting the ball during an at bat. It was not a thrown bat in the sense there was a confrontation with someone and the bat was thrown AT somebody. The first time it was thrown, it rang the poles of the backstop about 10 feet away from the ondeck circle. I issued a warning to the batter and advised the coach. Next at bat, he let his bat go and it hit the inside of my right foot. After the play was over, I ejected the batter/runner.
It may be a stretch to some, but if I had to justify it, I would probably use 3-3-1m. Although that says " deliberately ", if I have warned a batter to hold on to his bat and he lets it fly anyway, I construe that as deliberate. This probably would not be the issue for me that it is, but personal experience has guided my thought on this. Remember, my humble opinion.

Of course, I'm sorry, I had forgotten 3-3-1m, I guess that shows how much I use it.

Tony and Garth, both of you are off. 3-3-1m deals with when a batter gets mad and throws hit bat in disgust. I don't think that is what Tony has described. 3-3-1b deals with players who carelessly throw bats. This is a warn then eject situation.

Thanks, Luke. I don't have my books with me and I don't believe I've had to make that call in over 20 years.

Luke,
You are 100%, absolutely, right on the money correct. I don't know how I missed it. But there it is. 3-3-1b . . "carelessly throw a bat; ". The only two times I exercised that rule, I was not challenged. Both coaches knew I was right in ejecting. So I didn't have to cite the rule supporting my decision. But there it is. I stand corrected and appreciate your input. I know others do not endorse my opinion on this, which is OK. I respect their right to officiate in their own manner.
As long as I can cite the rule if needed, I feel strongly about this, as I indicated earlier. Again, my humble opinion.

Sidenote: the two cases where I ejected were not just casual tosses of the bat. They were violent releases to live ball areas. There were many other instances where bats being " carelessly thrown " were ignored because I did not feel danger was an issue or the throw of the bat was severe enough to invoke an ejection.