New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[GarthB]

"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."

A. Unless the pitcher slides his foot backward, it is physically impossible to step off backwards without raising the foot upwards.

B. That said, it is a matter of degree as to what is tolerated.

C. Not seeing the move, some of us have concentrated on the arguments of others. I for example, being the picker of nits that I am, have concentrated on K's argument that a pitcher may not lift his foot upward, when he may, indeed he must...at least somewhat.

D. I'm sure, however, that regards the larger argument, My original position will be proven wrong.

[Kaliix]

If I follow what you are saying Garth (and I am a little unsure that I am), I think I've stated that both up and backward should happen at about the same time. In fact, the criteria I gave was "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."

I agree, you have to lift you leg up somewhat and I'd give 'em till the knee becomes parallel with the waist.

What are your thoughts about simulating a pitching motion and intent?

I think those are actually the better arguments.

Originally posted by GarthB
"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."

A. Unless the pitcher slides his foot backward, it is physically impossible to step off backwards without raising the foot upwards.

B. That said, it is a matter of degree as to what is tolerated.

C. Not seeing the move, some of us have concentrated on the arguments of others. I for example, being the picker of nits that I am, have concentrated on K's argument that a pitcher may not lift his foot upward, when he may, indeed he must...at least somewhat.

D. I'm sure, however, that regards the larger argument, My original position will be proven wrong.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
[B]

What are your thoughts about simulating a pitching motion and intent?

I think those are actually the better arguments.


What do I think about about simulating a pitching motion and intent? I think they are inseparable. If I believe he is simulating a pitch then I must believe it is intentional.

As I said before, I have no doubt getting hung up on whether or not a pitcher may left his foot prior to stepping backwards led to an incorrect position on the general discussion. I have a tendency to find disagreement with those who claim to own logic and get so emotional in their own defense...often to my own detriment. Just another character flaw.


[Edited by GarthB on May 30th, 2005 at 03:44 PM]

[Dave Hensley]

The play that began this thread was presented to Jim Evans, owner of the Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring and, I would hope, a universally respected authority on the rules of baseball and their proper interpretation. Here is his response to the play:

The pitcher is required to step backward off the rubber when he disengages as specified in 8.01 (b). Deception is acceptable as long as it is mechanically legal. (Otherwise, how would a pitcher ever pickoff a runner?) In the move you described, this would be "deliberately deceiving the base runner" as expressed in the italicized case notes following 8.05. This is one in which you explain that the pitcher failed to legally disengage. Instead of stepping backward off the rubber, as required, he raised his foot straight up in an effort to deceive the runner. Not only is the action illegal, but this is where you get to play mindreader and tell the manager that you believe the pitcher's intent was to deliberately deceive (this time illegally). You are covered in the rule book with the case notes.

The thoughts expressed in those case notes are often misused but this is one example of when you can rightfully apply them.

I hope this interpretation from a noted authority provides enlightenment for those who have so steadfastly and confidently (dare I say arrogantly?) dismissed arguments that, it now appears, had quite a bit of merit and validity after all.

[Kaliix]

I don't claim to own logic. But I can follow and make good logical arguements. While I have gotten emotionally invested in this discussion, I have always argued the points using logic to make my arguements.

Others, including yourself, keep avoiding the really hard questions. No one will answer them. No one will try to logically argue them. Instead the umpires who would not call this a balk have ignored the salient points. Just as you did in your reply.

Instead, all those who believe this not to be a balk would believe that lifting the leg up to ones chest has backward direction, that there is any legitimate reason to lift the leg in that manner except to throw, either to a base or the plate, and that it was just a weird step off and not an intentional move to deceive.

I honestly can't believe that so many people believe the above paragraph.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB
[B]

Originally posted by Kaliix


What are your thoughts about simulating a pitching motion and intent?

I think those are actually the better arguments.


What do I think about about simulating a pitching motion and intent? I think they are inseparable. If I believe he is simulating a pitch then I must believe it is intentional.

As I said before, I have no doubt getting hung up on whether or not a pitcher may left his foot prior to stepping backwards led to an incorrect position on the general discussion. I have a tendency to find disagreement with those who claim to own logic and get so emotional in their own defense...often to my own detriment. Just another character flaw.


[Edited by GarthB on May 30th, 2005 at 03:44 PM]

[Kaliix]

Thank you so much Dave!

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
The play that began this thread was presented to Jim Evans, owner of the Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring and, I would hope, a universally respected authority on the rules of baseball and their proper interpretation. Here is his response to the play:

The pitcher is required to step backward off the rubber when he disengages as specified in 8.01 (b). Deception is acceptable as long as it is mechanically legal. (Otherwise, how would a pitcher ever pickoff a runner?) In the move you described, this would be "deliberately deceiving the base runner" as expressed in the italicized case notes following 8.05. This is one in which you explain that the pitcher failed to legally disengage. Instead of stepping backward off the rubber, as required, he raised his foot straight up in an effort to deceive the runner. Not only is the action illegal, but this is where you get to play mindreader and tell the manager that you believe the pitcher's intent was to deliberately deceive (this time illegally). You are covered in the rule book with the case notes.

The thoughts expressed in those case notes are often misused but this is one example of when you can rightfully apply them.

I hope this interpretation from a noted authority provides enlightenment for those who have so steadfastly and confidently (dare I say arrogantly?) dismissed arguments that, it now appears, had quite a bit of merit and validity after all.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley
The play that began this thread was presented to Jim Evans, owner of the Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring and, I would hope, a universally respected authority on the rules of baseball and their proper interpretation. Here is his response to the play:

The pitcher is required to step backward off the rubber when he disengages as specified in 8.01 (b). Deception is acceptable as long as it is mechanically legal. (Otherwise, how would a pitcher ever pickoff a runner?) In the move you described, this would be "deliberately deceiving the base runner" as expressed in the italicized case notes following 8.05. This is one in which you explain that the pitcher failed to legally disengage. Instead of stepping backward off the rubber, as required, he raised his foot straight up in an effort to deceive the runner. Not only is the action illegal, but this is where you get to play mindreader and tell the manager that you believe the pitcher's intent was to deliberately deceive (this time illegally). You are covered in the rule book with the case notes.

The thoughts expressed in those case notes are often misused but this is one example of when you can rightfully apply them.

I hope this interpretation from a noted authority provides enlightenment for those who have so steadfastly and confidently (dare I say arrogantly?) dismissed arguments that, it now appears, had quite a bit of merit and validity after all.

Arrogantly? I don't think so.
Early on, I said I would accept recognised or General Authority. Evans certainly falls into that category.
That said, I can't figure out how/ where Jim would make the distinction between those cases where, as he says, the "deception" language in the case notes is misused - and this case. However, even I am not cocky enough to argue with Jim Evans on rules interpretation.
Kaliix's "logic" is still suspect, but I can accept that the answer here is "because it just is" a deceptive balk.

[Kaliix]

Put it in quotes, call it suspect, but my logic was right. Backward was underlined, he said that the pitcher failed to legally disengage, calling the action (or motion) illegal, saying the intent was to deceive the runner.

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

My wife and I have this agreement. When we disagree on something and one of us is proved right, the person who is wrong is required to say, "You were right, I was wrong."

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Arrogantly? I don't think so.
Early on, I said I would accept recognised or General Authority. Evans certainly falls into that category.
That said, I can't figure out how/ where Jim would make the distinction between those cases where, as he says, the "deception" language in the case notes is misused - and this case. However, even I am not cocky enough to argue with Jim Evans on rules interpretation.
Kaliix's "logic" is still suspect, but I can accept that the answer here is "because it just is" a deceptive balk.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
I don't claim to own logic. But I can follow and make good logical arguements. While I have gotten emotionally invested in this discussion, I have always argued the points using logic to make my arguements.

Others, including yourself, keep avoiding the really hard questions. No one will answer them. No one will try to logically argue them. Instead the umpires who would not call this a balk have ignored the salient points. Just as you did in your reply.

Instead, all those who believe this not to be a balk would believe that lifting the leg up to ones chest has backward direction, that there is any legitimate reason to lift the leg in that manner except to throw, either to a base or the plate, and that it was just a weird step off and not an intentional move to deceive.

I honestly can't believe that so many people believe the above paragraph.



Wow. What an a$$. Not only are you so much smarter than anyone else, you're also I mind reader and can tell me what I believe. Avoiding hard questions? Please. Who the F do you think you are? You want to lecture because someone was wrong about a balk they never saw? Wow. What an a$$.

I answered your questions. I even admitted that I got hung up on a small point and would be proven wrong on the bigger issue.

I probably should have confined myself to discussing this with Dave Hensley. I wouldn't have been distracted by your arrogance and emotionalism and wouldn't have concentrated on the head of the pin issue.

The difference in your posts and Dave's, while taking the same side of the issue, is very telling.

I don't know what more you want. I said I was wrong. God forgive me. I lost an argument with a book umpire. Is there anything I can do to help you gloat some more? Not to be redudndant, but: Wow. What an a$$.

Dave, thanks for taking the time to clear up the issue. Isn't it amazing how Evans can explain his point of view without dramatics, accusations or emotionalism?

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Dave, thanks for taking the time to clear up the issue. Isn't it amazing how Evans can explain his point of view without dramatics, accusations or emotionalism?

Yes, and I try to model my style of writing after his, because my interest in these debates is not the pursuit of a debating victory (well, OK, it's fun to win an argument); rather, it is enlightenment and discovery of truth. Evans is a great teacher and I can't wait to get to one of (maybe one of his next) his Desert Classics.

I can't speak for Kalix, but when I mentioned some of the "arrogant" responses that have occurred in this lengthy thread, I was not speaking of anything you have posted in the thread. I just did a quick review, and here are some of the statements of others I thought were unnecessarily condescending or outright arrogant:

---

Apparently some umpires have difficulty understanding what is and what is not part of a pitching motion from the set position.

D-coach 1, Hensley OOO.

Fishing without bait.

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

This is a ludicrous argument.

However, that Rule only applies in CalvinBall, so most of us are not supposed to be using it.

It is obvious that you will never be convinced that stepping off from the set position with the pivot foot is not a balk.

---

In the grand scheme of things, even most of these statements are relatively innocuous, but given the Evans response that should settle this interesting and lively debate, one would hope the authors of those statements would have the integrity to at least post a final note to the thread acknowledging their newfound enlightenment.

[Kaliix]

You know what Garth, as tempted as I am, I am not going to name call or make this personal with you. I have a great respect for the personal e-mails you have sent me regarding questions that I have asked and from your responses that I have learned from on this board. In general, my comments were never directed at you. I'll leave it at that.

Your comment about "a balk they never saw" is a red-herring. There was never any disagreement about what the move was. We all agreed on what happened, but disagreed on the interpretation.

You did not answer my question, though I could have phrased it better. I asked you "What do I think about about simulating a pitching motion and intent?" I thought it was clear that I was asking you opinion of those two things based on the situation we were talking about. Your response "I think they are inseparable. If I believe he is simulating a pitch then I must believe it is intentional."

The only problem is that you didn't give your answer in regards to the situation we have been discussing. You obviously thought you could respond with a nonresponse and I would buy it. I am sorry, but you were wrong. I asked for your opinion and you didn't give it in regards to the situation.

Also, I disagree with your "rulebook" umpire statement. I believe that you mean that a "rulebook" umpire may know the written rules in the book, but doesn't understand their interpretation or know how to apply them. Since, in this case, I did know the rule, I did understand it's interpretation and I stated that I would have applied it correctly, I don't think your label applies. If you think it does, I will in this case be happy to be called a rule book umpire.

And while you can be offended by the "Instead, all those who believe this not to be a balk would believe..." the statement is true. All those who believed the move we were discussing was not a balk had to believe all three of those statements. Because if even one of them were true, a balk should be called.

I apologize if holding you feet to the fire offended you. But I have been arguing a 13 against 2 (maybe 3, right Rich) discussion and some of the people who have been arguing against me have been belittling in their comments, as referenced below.

I have tried hard to keep this from getting personal. While all along, I have strongly believed that I was right, I, for the most part, have tried to use logical arguements to make my points. If any of you go back and read my comments, I have taken great care to fully explain my logic and have even directly answered most of the arguements made against me.

I feel that Mr. Evan's answer vindicated all three positions I was taking.

If Jim Evan's had said that the move we were discussing were not a balk, I would have come on the board, made my apologies and eaten crow. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I have no problem admitting when I am wrong.

How many others of you out there feel the same way?







I went back and read the thread again and counted 13 people who disagreed with the fact that the situation described was a balk. I was told:

"I'm not sure how or why a balk should be called on a move expressly allowed in the rules. what other legal movements do we balk??? "

"WHICH rule says how high F1 can/can't lift his [pivot] leg when moving it from in front to behind the rubber?"

"I don't see how this move mimics a pitch"

"LilLeaguer nailed you, K."

"What "Pitching motion" was he "simulating" while not in contact w/ the rubber?"

"SURELY you are not claiming that lifting the PIVOT leg off the rubber was a "simulation" of the pitch while not-in-contact?"

"Got any actual RULE [from the Book, now - not "definitions" YOU make up] you think this might have violated?"

"So does that mean every pitcher that lifts his "free" foot more than a few inches during a delivery from the windup position would be guilty of balk?!?
I don't think so."

"Lifting your leg up, isn't a step; It's simply just lifting your leg up!"

"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."

"Please give us your explanation to the coach as to what rule in the book has been violated.........."

"Rule doesn't say "step normally", nor even "step like 999 out of 1000 random people would step": merely "step backwards". No interpretation, using common sense or otherwise, required."

"that's just silly. Lifting the PIVOT leg is NEVER "associated with ..." ANY form of pitching motion"

"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."

"How can you balk a pitcher when he did nothing that is against the rules."

"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."

"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........."

"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)."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

"...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."

"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."

"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."

"Arrogantly? I don't think so. Kaliix's "logic" is still suspect, but I can accept that the answer here is "because it just is" a deceptive balk."

[GarthB]

Originally posted by Kaliix
You know what Garth, as tempted as I am, I am not going to name call or make this personal with you. I have a great respect for the personal e-mails you have sent me regarding questions that I have asked and from your responses that I have learned from on this board. In general, my comments were never directed at you. I'll leave it at that.

Your comment about "a balk they never saw" is a red-herring. There was never any disagreement about what the move was. We all agreed on what happened, but disagreed on the interpretation.

You did not answer my question, though I could have phrased it better. I asked you "What do I think about about simulating a pitching motion and intent?" I thought it was clear that I was asking you opinion of those two things based on the situation we were talking about. Your response "I think they are inseparable. If I believe he is simulating a pitch then I must believe it is intentional."

The only problem is that you didn't give your answer in regards to the situation we have been discussing. You obviously thought you could respond with a nonresponse and I would buy it. I am sorry, but you were wrong. I asked for your opinion and you didn't give it in regards to the situation.

Once again witht the mind reading act. You asked a question I answered it. What could be more simple. Maybe if I used one sentence instead of two? How about this: "Anytime I believe a pitcher simulates his motion, I also believe it is intentional." Does that make it easier for you. Your post separated the question from the orignal discussion. Now you say you wanted me to connect it back? Good grief.

This must be the first diagreement you won. You are so wrapped up in being right you can't see what others are saying. I said I was wrong at leat three times. What more do you want from me? I'm not your wife.

My bride of 31 years and I also have a tradition. Any time we argue, which is extremely rare. We end it with a mutal apology for wasting our time together over something trival. No gloating. No humbling. I try to carry that over in other areas of my life. I try to be humble on the losing end and admit I was wrong, as I did here. I also try not to act as you are when I am on the winning end.

For your information, when Dave Hensley emailed Jim Evans' response to me, his first inclination was to not post it here. I encouraged him to post it. I thought it was important to end this silly debate even if I was wrong.

So please, K, take your mind reading act elsewhere. You're not very good at it.

[Kaliix]

If it makes you sleep better at night, believe what you want Garth...

Originally posted by GarthB

Once again witht the mind reading act. You asked a question I answered it. What could be more simple. Maybe if I used one sentence instead of two? How about this: "Anytime I believe a pitcher simulates his motion, I also believe it is intentional." Does that make it easier for you. Your post separated the question from the orignal discussion. Now you say you wanted me to connect it back? Good grief.

This must be the first diagreement you won. You are so wrapped up in being right you can't see what others are saying. I said I was wrong at leat three times. What more do you want from me? I'm not your wife.

My bride of 31 years and I also have a tradition. Any time we argue, which is extremely rare. We end it with a mutal apology for wasting our time together over something trival. No gloating. No humbling. I try to carry that over in other areas of my life. I try to be humble on the losing end and admit I was wrong, as I did here. I also try not to act as you are when I am on the winning end.

For your information, when Dave Hensley emailed Jim Evans' response to me, his first inclination was to not post it here. I encouraged him to post it. I thought it was important to end this silly debate even if I was wrong.

So please, K, take your mind reading act elsewhere. You're not very good at it.

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
If it makes you sleep better at night, believe what you want Garth...



Your are pricelss.

A once sentence superiority dance. Life is too short for this. There was nothing in post that was untrue. Some people can't deal with losing. You can't deal with winning.

Kaliix, meet Emmerling and Porter. They reside in a special place. You'll fit in nicely.

This will be my last post to you or in any thread you've started. Feel free to have the last word. It will go without remark.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

...given the Evans response that should settle this interesting and lively debate, one would hope the authors of those statements would have the integrity to at least post a final note to the thread acknowledging their newfound enlightenment.

[/B]

Thought I'd already done that; but in case I was not clear/ contrite enough:

WOW! That's news to me; Jim Evans certainly is "recognised or General Authority": and inasmuch as I said earlier that I would accept such, I now formally confess error.
I don't understand it, but I can easily accept it.

And if my poor attempts at humor and a light tone with my posts was read by you [Dave] as condescending [or arrogant, although I tend to see that as less of a sin, myself]; well, that's not what I intended at all.