New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[Rich]

Originally posted by DG

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.

Nobody pitches by legally disengaging and then bringing his hands above his head either. But THAT'S considered a balk.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

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.

With your interpretation, there would essentially be no use for 8.05(g) at all. It would never come into effect. Your logic is circular.

Here are Jim Evans' comments on 8.05(g):

Customs and Usage: This prevents deception by the pitcher. Often, it is difficult for the runner to determine
whether or not the pitcher is in actual contact with the rubber. If the pitcher tries to deceive the runner in this
manner, it shall be called a balk.

A game in which the umpire is allowing the abuse of 8.05(g) with moves such as the one that began this thread, or the other popular trick move that should be balked but apparently you guys wouldn't balk - in which the pitcher from windup steps backwards with his pivot foot while raising his arms in a windup move, and then quickly pivots and picks off the runner - will surely resemble "Calvinball" quite a bit more than the games in which these bush-league, Emerling-style calculated moves to deceive the runners are appropriately nipped in the bud by being balked.

[DG]

Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Nobody pitches by legally disengaging and then bringing his hands above his head either. But THAT'S considered a balk.

But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first.

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG

But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first.

But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement.

You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

[DG]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Originally posted by DG

But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement.

You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

I am not going to discuss this anymore. It is obvious that you will never be convinced that stepping off from the set position with the pivot foot is not a balk.

[bob jenkins]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Originally posted by DG

But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement.

You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it a balk.

If you follow Kalix's "logic" then there's no difference betwen a (normal) step-off and a (normal) step back with the non-pivot foot -- those are both MOTIONs associated with the pitch -- so even the normal step back should be a balk.

[cbfoulds]

...Bob: maybe Hensley will believe you [I've given up on Kaliix]. And Dave, I'm balking those "other moves" you mentioned every time. Not this one - it's a step off and nothing more.

[GarthB]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it a balk.

If you follow Kalix's "logic" then there's no difference betwen a (normal) step-off and a (normal) step back with the non-pivot foot -- those are both MOTIONs associated with the pitch -- so even the normal step back should be a balk.

The voice of reason, and from all places, Illinois.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by DG
I am not going to discuss this anymore. It is obvious that you will never be convinced that stepping off from the set position with the pivot foot is not a balk.

That's a horse**** response. I've never argued that stepping off from the set position with the pivot foot is a balk. You're creating a strawman.

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by bob jenkins
You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it a balk.

If you follow Kalix's "logic" then there's no difference betwen a (normal) step-off and a (normal) step back with the non-pivot foot -- those are both MOTIONs associated with the pitch -- so even the normal step back should be a balk. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, from windup, the normal step back, IF NOT FOLLOWED BY A PITCH, should be a balk. I don't find fault with Kalix's logic as you've summarized it.

We're back into umpires dancing on the head of a pin. Ironic that one of your posts brought us back from that realm, and now another of yours has completed the roundtrip back into the dancing world.

[Kaliix]

Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules.

Bob, that is the worst attempt at a logical arguement I seen in a while. We are talking about a step off from the set position, not the windup. No one steps back with the non pivot foot from the stretch. A step back with the non pivot foot in the windup is a motion associated with a pitch and in fact commits the pitcher to pitch, as I am sure you know.

Trying to compare that step back with the non pivot foot in the windup to a disengagement step back with the pivot foot in the set position are apples and oranges. It is a lousy attempt at a analogy and a worse attempt at a logical arguement.

How about one of you guys trying to logically argue the points that have been brought up.

1)The rule says the pitcher must STEP BACKWARD OFF the plate. Why are you allowing any motion but what is written in the rule?

No one has answered that yet. Don't tell me that lifting his leg up to his chest is a step backward. There are two motions indicated in the rule, backwards and off. Why are you allowing one motion to occur with out enforcing the other. Backwards is even written first in the rule and yet you are going to allow a pitcher to lift his leg to the sky, rationalizing this by saying that he will eventually step back.

2)The rule says the pitcher may not make a motion associated with his pitch while disengaged from the rubber. There is only one time when a right handed pitcher brings a knee up to his waist or chest when on the mound. That is when he is making a motion to pitch (or possibly step and throw to third, but that is not the case in this situation). At no other time does that ever normally happen. When a leg comes up that high, it's to pitch. To do it with the other leg is making that exact same MOTION as you would to pitch. The rule says making a MOTION associated with a pitch is against the rule. It is that motion that is being simulated for only one purpose, to deceive the runner. The rule doesn't specify whether the motion is being done with the right body part or not. It only says motion because that is all that is needed to be deceptive. Which leads us to...

3)The balk rules clearly give the umpire the right to judge intent. There is no legitimate reason to raise you leg up that high when disengaging, except to try and fool the runner. No legitimate reason that anyone so far in this thread has come up with. That is because the intent of such a move is clear, it is an intent to deceive.

The rule says backward off and lifting the leg to the sky is not a step backward. Lifting the leg up to the chest is only ever associated with a pitch for a right handed pitcher. The intent of such a move has one purpose only, that is to deceive the runner.

And no good arguements that address the actual points...


[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it a balk.

If you follow Kalix's "logic" then there's no difference betwen a (normal) step-off and a (normal) step back with the non-pivot foot -- those are both MOTIONs associated with the pitch -- so even the normal step back should be a balk.

[David B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules.

Bob, that is the worst attempt at a logical arguement I seen in a while. We are talking about a step off from the set position, not the windup. No one steps back with the non pivot foot from the stretch. A step back with the non pivot foot in the windup is a motion associated with a pitch and in fact commits the pitcher to pitch, as I am sure you know.

Trying to compare that step back with the non pivot foot in the windup to a disengagement step back with the pivot foot in the set position are apples and oranges. It is a lousy attempt at a analogy and a worse attempt at a logical arguement.

How about one of you guys trying to logically argue the points that have been brought up.

1)The rule says the pitcher must STEP BACKWARD OFF the plate. Why are you allowing any motion but what is written in the rule?

No one has answered that yet. Don't tell me that lifting his leg up to his chest is a step backward. There are two motions indicated in the rule, backwards and off. Why are you allowing one motion to occur with out enforcing the other. Backwards is even written first in the rule and yet you are going to allow a pitcher to lift his leg to the sky, rationalizing this by saying that he will eventually step back.

2)The rule says the pitcher may not make a motion associated with his pitch while disengaged from the rubber. There is only one time when a right handed pitcher brings a knee up to his waist or chest when on the mound. That is when he is making a motion to pitch (or possibly step and throw to third, but that is not the case in this situation). At no other time does that ever normally happen. When a leg comes up that high, it's to pitch. To do it with the other leg is making that exact same MOTION as you would to pitch. The rule says making a MOTION associated with a pitch is against the rule. It is that motion that is being simulated for only one purpose, to deceive the runner. The rule doesn't specify whether the motion is being done with the right body part or not. It only says motion because that is all that is needed to be deceptive. Which leads us to...

3)The balk rules clearly give the umpire the right to judge intent. There is no legitimate reason to raise you leg up that high when disengaging, except to try and fool the runner. No legitimate reason that anyone so far in this thread has come up with. That is because the intent of such a move is clear, it is an intent to deceive.

The rule says backward off and lifting the leg to the sky is not a step backward. Lifting the leg up to the chest is only ever associated with a pitch for a right handed pitcher. The intent of such a move has one purpose only, that is to deceive the runner.

And no good arguements that address the actual points...

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Okay if you want to try logic, then give me a rule where it says that F1 cannot lift his knee up as he steps backwards.

There is no rule. You keep quoting a portion of the rule that says he "must step backward" but it doesn't say anything in the rule about the preliminary motions that may come before he steps backward.

This is like a merry go round - bottom line is that the pitcher did not balk. He simply was stepping back.

There is no rule that says anything different.

It not only makes sense, but it makes common sense.

Just because its different doesn't make it a balk.

I thought Bob explained it very well above as far as your other points.

Thanks
David

[GarthB]

"Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules."

Wrong. Twice. It was not umpires who wrote the OBR. And just becuase one disagrees with you does not condemn them to being unable to follow logic.

Bob makes sense. If you were less emotionally invested in your position, you would see that.

[Kaliix]

"Okay if you want to try logic, then give me a rule where it says that F1 cannot lift his knee up as he steps backwards."

I never said there was a rule that said F1 cannot lift his knee up as he steps backward. As I mentioned earlier, the rule indicates TWO motions, backward off. Stepping off can only be interpreted as removing the pivot foot from the rubber. The only two ways to do that are to slide it off in some direction or lift the leg up.

Since saying the pitcher only has to step off leaves alot of room for which way the motion off has to occur, the rulesmakers clarified the motion by saying backward off. Putting the term backward in the description of how the pitcher must disengage leaves no doubt as to how the step off must occur. It must occur backward. The leg can raise up or slide off and the direction of movement, by the rule, must occur backward.

Since the both backward and off are the indicated motions, they should reasonably occur at about the same time. Now, you could lift up a bit more at first or just slide the foot straight back. But to allow two feet of motion off (straight up) without any motion backward clearly indicates you are doing one without the other.

I have taken great pains to describe the step as backward off and not just backward. I am not just quoting part of the rule.

There is nothing in the rule about preliminary movement, you are right. The rule states the pitcher is allowed to do three things from the set. Pitch, throw to a base or step backward off. If those are the only three things allowed by the rule, why allow any preliminary motion? The rule states that only three things can occur. The one we are discussing is a step backward off. Since it is one of only three things allowed, anything other than a pitch, throw to a base or a backward step off is illegal and hence a balk.

That is why a preliminary motion is not allowed.

And Bob compared a step from the windup versus a step from the set. Two very different things. In fact the step Bob is taking about from the windup is specifically addressed in the rule under 8.01 (a) "He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the plate, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot."

Since Bob's arguement compared two different pitching position that fall under different rules (under the same section) and the step that he refers to is actually addressed in the rule, it is a poor arguement.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Originally posted by Kaliix
Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules.

Bob, that is the worst attempt at a logical arguement I seen in a while. We are talking about a step off from the set position, not the windup. No one steps back with the non pivot foot from the stretch. A step back with the non pivot foot in the windup is a motion associated with a pitch and in fact commits the pitcher to pitch, as I am sure you know.

Trying to compare that step back with the non pivot foot in the windup to a disengagement step back with the pivot foot in the set position are apples and oranges. It is a lousy attempt at a analogy and a worse attempt at a logical arguement.

How about one of you guys trying to logically argue the points that have been brought up.

1)The rule says the pitcher must STEP BACKWARD OFF the plate. Why are you allowing any motion but what is written in the rule?

No one has answered that yet. Don't tell me that lifting his leg up to his chest is a step backward. There are two motions indicated in the rule, backwards and off. Why are you allowing one motion to occur with out enforcing the other. Backwards is even written first in the rule and yet you are going to allow a pitcher to lift his leg to the sky, rationalizing this by saying that he will eventually step back.

2)The rule says the pitcher may not make a motion associated with his pitch while disengaged from the rubber. There is only one time when a right handed pitcher brings a knee up to his waist or chest when on the mound. That is when he is making a motion to pitch (or possibly step and throw to third, but that is not the case in this situation). At no other time does that ever normally happen. When a leg comes up that high, it's to pitch. To do it with the other leg is making that exact same MOTION as you would to pitch. The rule says making a MOTION associated with a pitch is against the rule. It is that motion that is being simulated for only one purpose, to deceive the runner. The rule doesn't specify whether the motion is being done with the right body part or not. It only says motion because that is all that is needed to be deceptive. Which leads us to...

3)The balk rules clearly give the umpire the right to judge intent. There is no legitimate reason to raise you leg up that high when disengaging, except to try and fool the runner. No legitimate reason that anyone so far in this thread has come up with. That is because the intent of such a move is clear, it is an intent to deceive.

The rule says backward off and lifting the leg to the sky is not a step backward. Lifting the leg up to the chest is only ever associated with a pitch for a right handed pitcher. The intent of such a move has one purpose only, that is to deceive the runner.

And no good arguements that address the actual points...

Okay if you want to try logic, then give me a rule where it says that F1 cannot lift his knee up as he steps backwards.

There is no rule. You keep quoting a portion of the rule that says he "must step backward" but it doesn't say anything in the rule about the preliminary motions that may come before he steps backward.

This is like a merry go round - bottom line is that the pitcher did not balk. He simply was stepping back.

There is no rule that says anything different.

It not only makes sense, but it makes common sense.

Just because its different doesn't make it a balk.

I thought Bob explained it very well above as far as your other points.

Thanks
David

[Kaliix]

Bob makes no sense Garth. We are talking about a step off from the set, not a step backward from the windup. Two different things. The step backward from the windup is written in the windup rule. In fact, the windup rule clearly states that the pitcher should not "raise either foot from the ground, except in the actual delivery of the ball to the batter,..."

They seem to be saying that the raising of the leg in windup indicates, and in fact demands, that the pitcher pitch.

Since from the set, the pitcher can also raise his leg to throw to a base or pitch, it logically follows that the raising of a leg indicates a throw to a base or a pitch. Since the pitcher in this case does it while stepping off, it means that he made a motion associated with a pitch (or a throw to a base) and did neither. Since the motion occured while not in contact that makes it a balk?

What other reason could there be for lifting the leg like that? There isn't one. The intent is clear, to deceive.

Hummm....

Originally posted by GarthB
"Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules."

Wrong. Twice. It was not umpires who wrote the OBR. And just becuase one disagrees with you does not condemn them to being unable to follow logic.

Bob makes sense. If you were less emotionally invested in your position, you would see that.