New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[cbfoulds]

Still Bravo Sierra, K.
The only thing the J/R quote adds to the mix is the "without interruption or hesitation" part, and that has been presumed all along. If F1 lifts EITHER foot and "hangs" it up in the air [with nothing else moving], it's a balk. Doesn't matter how high he lifts it in that case either.

If the leg/foot keeps moving [up, and then down and back (or back and down)] in this case, he's all good. SURELY you are not gonna balk F1 if he lifts his pivot foot 6 inches [or less!] straight up to step back, instead of in a perfect 45* angled path?

[Kaliix]

8.01(b) "...From the set position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot."

The rule gives a direction and distance, BACKWARD off...

You have to do both, at the same time, backward and off.

If you lift your leg straight up, your not going backward... :-)

[Kaliix]

Of course I'm not going to balk a kid at 6". Not at 12" either. What I'm looking for is his knee coming parallel with his waist. To lift you leg up that high is 18" at least.

At that point, if he hasn't stepped backward and isn't coming down, balk.

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Still Bravo Sierra, K.
The only thing the J/R quote adds to the mix is the "without interruption or hesitation" part, and that has been presumed all along. If F1 lifts EITHER foot and "hangs" it up in the air [with nothing else moving], it's a balk. Doesn't matter how high he lifts it in that case either.

If the leg/foot keeps moving [up, and then down and back (or back and down)] in this case, he's all good. SURELY you are not gonna balk F1 if he lifts his pivot foot 6 inches [or less!] straight up to step back, instead of in a perfect 45* angled path?

[Kaliix]

I have to assume they said step backward off for a reason and not just step off.

If they just said "step off", I'd be on your side...

[cbfoulds]

Same dog, K.
If'n it ain't a balk at 6", it ain't a balk at 18: ya' got no rule support for making the distinction. You are making this one up on your own. The "it's not a BACKWARD step" is lame, not to mention illogical and without any supporting authority; and if you called it, you SHOULD lose the protest. But, hey, call what you can get away with, I guess.

[DG]

How many times have I heard the 1B coach say to his runner "watch his heels, watch his heels". Hundreds, maybe thousands. Why? Because if he picks up the pivot foot heel first he is not going to the plate. If he picks up his pivot foot heel first, I am not going to call a balk unless he moves his hands up like he is simulating, or if he sets his pivot foot back down against the rubber after lifting.

[David B]

Originally posted by Bfair

I'm in total agreement with your comments, Matthew......

Apparently some umpires have difficulty understanding what is and what is not part of a pitching motion from the set position. Lifting the pivot foot from the set position is definitlely NOT part of a pitching motion. With that in mind, how can it be claimed that the pitcher is simulating a motion associated with his pitch? Since it's definitely not part of his pitching motion, why should there be any doubt in an umpire's mind as to whether or not it's a balk? WHY should one even apply a standard of pitcher's intent to deceive when in fact the pitcher has done nothing illegal other than, with exaggeration, initiated his step backward?

An analogy here to a pitcher having stepped back off the rubber and then raising his hands to start his windup is a poor analogy since the raising of the hands DOES simulate a motion associated with the pitch.

But let's assume you balk the pitcher.............
Please give us your explanation to the coach as to what rule in the book has been violated..........


Just my opinion,

Freix

Exactly what I was thinking and you wrote it much better than I could have.

How can you balk a pitcher when he did nothing that is against the rules. Maybe a little wierd, but then just because it looks like a balk ...

... doesn't always mean its a balk (at least in the real world)

And good to see you're alive and kickin

Thanks
David

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Kaliix
8.01(b) "...From the set position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot."

The rule gives a direction and distance, BACKWARD off...

You have to do both, at the same time, backward and off.

If you lift your leg straight up, your not going backward... :-)

Hmmmmm................assuming your logic is correct.........
The pitching rules also state that a pitcher from the rubber must step directly to the base he is throwing or feinting to.........
So may I assume that if a LH F1 first raises his nonpivot foot upward and then steps toward 1B that you would balk him? Certainly that balk would follow the same logic of your explanation of the movement of the pitcher's pivot foot while moving backward........

Come to think of it........do you allow this same LH F1 to step within the 45 degree.......or must it be directly to the base?

Kalix, the 45 has been defined for us in authoritative interpretation and within accepted practice of umpiring. Certainly if in doubt on the 45 degree step, then let the intent of the pitcher guide your determination.........a good place to apply that rule of guidance which we are provided. However, we are not provided such defined limitation on how high a pitcher may raise his pivot foot while stepping backward off the rubber. Yet, it seems like you are attempting to develop a limit on your own.

While you offer good support in quote from JR, remember that JR is talking continuous movement and doesn't address height of the rise of the pivot foot. Don't try to add something to it that is not there.

Bottom line is that the action in itself should be a siren to a runner that a pitch is not occurring, and thus, the warning that he is in potential jeopardy. Any runner deceived or picked off with such a slipshod pitching move deserves his just reward, and will be better off for it. The learning experience to the runner will remain memorable for him.

As an umpire, look for that which there, but don't look for that which is not there else you will be causing yourself troubles in both your game and reputation. Know the rules, understand advantage and disadvantage within the intent of the rules, and use good judgment in applying the rules (which is not always black and white as written).

The pitcher here sounds the siren and gains no advantage.............
The pitcher has broken no pitching rule........
The pitcher here has not balked........
An umpire who cannot explain to a complaining offensive coach why a balk has not occurred here needs to understand the rules better.........


Just my opinion,

Freix

[JJ]

Not a balk. Not even deceptive in my book because in raising the PIVOT foot he did not simulate a pitching motion. And yes, in order to move my foot back, I first have to lift it up. Why is this even a question for debate? It's too obvious (at least to me).

[Kaliix]

Let's just end this once and for all.

If there is some interpretation or opinion that the situation we've been describing is not a balk, I'd love to hear it. It wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong when reading the rule book.

I've been accused of making up this interpretation. I think it is in fact the other way around. I have written the appropriate part of the rule verbatim.

8.01 (b) says the pitcher must "...step backward off the pitchers plate with his pivot foot."

A step involves lifting the leg. We all agree.

The pitcher has to step off the pitcher's plate to disengage. We all agree on this as well.

The rule states that the pitcher, to legally disengage, must step backward. That clearly gives the direction of the step.

Bringing the knee up to the chest is a step up. It is in no way a step backward. If the step is up and then the foot eventually ends up behind the rubber, we have a step up and then a step backward.

I agree that a step involoves lifting of the leg. A step also involves movement in some x-axis direction. If you step forward you lift your leg and move it forward at the same time. It is a TWO DIRECTION MOVEMENT. The legs lifts and goes forward at the same time.

So why is it that everyone is going to ignore the "backward" portion of the rule. It is written first. Even before the word "off".

Logic dictates that if the direction and movement are written together to explain the how the step is to be taken, that BOTH direction, which is "backwards", and movement, "off", which means lifting of the leg in order to step, be done at the same time.

That is a very logical, straight forward, reading of the written word. It does say "backward off".

Give me a logical reason why anyone would allow one motion, off, without the other, backward? The rule isn't written that way. You can lift the foot and move it backward at the same time.

I'm being accused of making this rule up. But it reads backward off. Not up and off.

How does one justify breaking up the two movements when they are written together?

The rule says step backwards... Does it not?

The lifting of the leg is only one part of the step. It must have DIRECTION. And that direction is given first in the explanation of the rule.

BACKWARDS!

[Kaliix]

Bfair wrote "The pitching rules also state that a pitcher from the rubber must step directly to the base he is throwing or feinting to.........
So may I assume that if a LH F1 first raises his nonpivot foot upward and then steps toward 1B that you would balk him?"

It wouldn't be a balk because the pitcher can lift his leg to either pitch or throw to a base. Since he is not disengaging the rubber, lifting the leg means he could do either.

In this case, there is a legitmate reason to lift the leg up. It could be ones natural pitching motion or it could be a step. And until the pitcher makes a movement in one direction or the other, he is not committed to doing either.

When disengaging the rubber, there is only one thing a pitcher can do. And that is step backwards to disengage.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Let's just end this once and for all.

What's the (general) purpose of the balk rule? To limit the deception of a runner by the pitcher.

How does the move described deceive the runner? It doesn't.

It was a "strange" step, true. But it was a step.

Not a balk.

[David B]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Let's just end this once and for all.

Since (1)there's always a hole in front of the mound and the (2) the pitcheris wearing cleats then he always will have to pick his foot up first and then backwards.

The rest is "what Bob said"

Keep it simple and stay out of trouble.

Thanks
David

[David B]

Originally posted by David B

Since (1)there's always a hole in front of the mound and the (2) the pitcher is wearing cleats then he always will have to pick his foot up first and then backwards.

The rest is "what Bob said"

Keep it simple and stay out of trouble.

Thanks
David

[Kaliix]

I agree with you. Pick up the foot, clear the rubber and then move it backward. As I said earlier, unless the knee comes parallel with the waist, I've got nothing.

Originally posted by David B

Since (1)there's always a hole in front of the mound and the (2) the pitcheris wearing cleats then he always will have to pick his foot up first and then backwards.

The rest is "what Bob said"

Keep it simple and stay out of trouble.

Thanks
David