<B>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.</B>


Nahhhh. Just one awkard step. To have a step, the foot has to come down. The first move is just that, a move, motion, the beginning of a step. You got one step here.

Ah, yes. Thank you for bringing the issue back from the "how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin" realm, to the key issue - what is the general purpose of the balk rule?

I think if you re-read the original post, you will see that the umpire judged the pitcher's move to be a calculated attempt to deceive the runner, before then initiating a pickoff attempt. Specifically, he was simulating the high leg kick a pitcher sometimes performs with his FREE foot that commits such pitcher to the pitch. He was doing it with his pivot foot instead of his free foot, but the slow deliberate motion that LOOKS LIKE the free foot kick could, theoretically, trick a somewhat inattentive runner into believing the pitcher had begun a motion that committed him to the pitch.

Now, you Darwinians are apparently content to say, well OK, if the runner is THAT stupid, he deserves to be deceived by this motion and picked off. But unfortunately, that lily-livered pinko rulebook protects that runner from such acts of deception. The move is a balk. It is crystal clear that it was designed to deceive the runner. By specific, explicit rule which I've already quoted a few miles upstream in this thread, it is a balk.

It is no different from the balk move of simulating a windup motion by stepping back with the pivot foot and simultaneously raising the hands in a windup motion, then quickly turning and picking off the runner. In this move, once again, the "wrong" foot is leading the move, but it is expected that the runner won't notice this, and will then be fooled by the additional windup motion move.

Really, guys, think about this move. It's not "just something weird" that the pitcher has innocently gotten into the habit of. It is a planned, calculated move, probably cooked up by an Emerling-coach-type, practiced and executed in order to deceive a baserunner into lengthening his lead because he believes the pitcher has committed himself to the pitch.

And Bfair, it's nice to have you back but please, check the condescension at the door. Do you really want Bfair Version 2.0 to simply be deja vu all over again?

Hensley: Balk!

D-coach: Why? He stepped off.

Hensley: He can't step off LIKE THAT!

D-coach: Why not?

Hensley: He deceived the runner!

D-coach: Deception's not against the rules! I protest.



D-coach 1, Hensley OOO.

No base runner who has any coaching at all will be picked off by a pitcher who is set and lifts his pivot foot first, no matter how high he lifts it. No rules violation, no balk.

My response to a request for an explanation would be "he violated 8.05(g), by making a move simulating a pitch while not in contact with the rubber." I judged that the pitcher was employing a calculated, designed move to deceive the runner into believing he had actually begun and committed himself to a pitch. There is an instruction in the rulebook that says, and I quote, "Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire's mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern."

Please feel free to protest my judgment call; we'll use your protest fee to buy beer and pizza for the protest committee.

The success or lack thereof of the move is not what makes it illegal. The fact that it is a designed move, calculated to deceive a runner into believing that the pitcher has begun a motion committing him to the pitch, is what makes it illegal.

You give base runners and coaches more credit for intelligence than, in my experience, they deserve.

Fishing without bait.

Dave ol' buddy: you'd best actually go back and read the rule you think you are citing.

It is a balk if:....

(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate;

Note that a move "simulating" a pitch [whatever that may mean - here you are apparently using it to mean something that sorta-kinda looks like but is NOT "a motion NATURALLY associated with" the pitch] IS NOT FORBIDDEN by this rule.

Lifting the pivot foot/leg IS NOT a motion "naturally associated" with ANY pitching delivery. It is not a balk. If F1 intends to decieve the runners, he can suceed if and only if the runners and their base coaches are all entirely brain-dead. If that is darwinian of me, GOOD!

To repeat: the only rule violated by this move is the old: don't-do-anything-so-ugly-that-it-wakes-up-the-umpire, lest he balk it on the principle that if it's that ugly it must be illegal, -Rule[9.01Q]. However, that Rule only applies in CalvinBall, so most of us are not supposed to be using it.

A balk is, by definition, a judgment call. Dave's subsequent answer is NOT protestable.

We had a pitcher this season do the "windup position, step off, and then raise his arms as if starting a windup" thing. Balk. No doubt. Coach said that once he steps off he can do anything since he's a fielder. Right.

Lifting a leg in a motion so unnatural it only makes sense if done with the free foot is, as I see it, a motion naturally associated with a pitch.

"The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate"

Isn't lifting your leg up to your waist or chest a MOTION naturally associated with his pitch?

Just because it's the other leg, the MOTION is still associated with his pitch.

Balk!

Not if it's your PIVOT foot/leg.

"Not if it's your PIVOT foot/leg."

It doesn't matter which leg it is. The rule doesn't say that say that the MOTION has to occur with the right body part. You are adding things to the rule and making up your own interpretation.

The rule simply says making a MOTION associated with his pitch. Lifting the knee up to your chest is a MOTION associated with his pitch. It is done with intent to decieve.

It's a balk.

This is a ludicrous argument. Nobody pitches by lifting their pivot foot first and if htey did it would be balk for not being on contact with the rubber. Raad the responses and adjust.

mo*tion n.
The act or process of changing position or place.
The manner in which the body moves, as in walking.

It is perfectly legitimate argument based on the language of the rule.

Is lifting lifting your knee to your chest a motion associated with a pitch.

Answer - Yes

The rule says MOTION!

You cannot argue that the motion of lifting your knee up to your chest is not a motion associated with a pitch. You can't! The MOTION IS associated with a pitch. He may not actually be able to pitch that way, but the motion certainly suggests that.

The rule book also clearly gives the umpire the ability to judge the intent of the pitcher in the notes under 8.05.

It should be obvious that the intent of this movement is to deceive the runner. There is absolutely no other reason to make that type of move.

Not a backward step...
Simulating a motion while not in contact...
Judge the intent of the move...

Balk, Balk, Balk...