New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[David B]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Originally posted by David B

You should not wait to judge whether or not the runner was deceived by the pitcher's motion. The effectiveness of the move is not the salient point; rather, the intent of the move is what you must judge. If you judge the pitcher's move to be made with the intent to deceive the runner, balk it. Don't wait to see whether the runner bit or not.

Well I don't want to open another can of worms, but I consider this under the heading "mechanical balk"

I also would consider this under the realm of highly mechanical since everyone knows (or should know) when the pivot foot moves go back to the base.

So just as I don't balk when F1 obviously (with the F2 telling him step back) steps back with the wrong foot, I probably in this situation do the same.

If the runner was an idiot and got picked off, call it a balk, if the runner is not ignore it.

I'm not saying an umpire is wrong to call it, but just that in my many many years of calling, some things are just best alone and ignored.

Since its umpires judgement on a balk, I have that authority by rule IMHO.

Thanks
David

[LMan]

well, what Im getting out of all this is, I can call this either way from now on and no one's going to say conclusively that I was wrong

[mbyron]

Some folks are concerned about judging players' "intent." Note that the intent test is mentioned in the "approved ruling" under 8.05. Here is the entire passage:

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.
However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:
(a) Straddling the pitcher's rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.
(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and
throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.

Notice that the intent test is CONDITIONAL: we are to apply it as a last resort, and only when we are in doubt concerning a balk. It does not apply to other rules (or so a narrow reading of the rule would maintain).

Does anyone else find (b) strange here? What does that play have to do with assessing "intent to deceive"?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by Bfair
While I'll accept Evans' ruling, I'm truly amazed by it.

I'd compare the situation to one where a pitcher in OBR stands behind the rubber pretending to be positioning the ball in his glove while, indeed, F3 has the ball waiting to put the tag on R1 if he's willing to step off the base.

While no pitching rule has been broken, it's unmistakeable that the pitcher's actions are clearly meant to deceive the runner.
So......USING THE EVANS LOGIC, should a balk be called on this pitcher for clearly trying to deceive the runner despite the fact that he has broken no rule of pitching????..........lol


Just my opinion,

Freix

The difference is that in your situation, the pitcher is not simulating a pitching motion while off the rubber. No illegal mechanics at play.

It's easier to understand Jim's rationale if you don't actively resist it.

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Frankly, Dave, most of the senior umpires that I know and respect from my past times at the boards who commented on this seemed to agree that they thought it would not be a balk including Bob, Garth, JJ, and David. (Let's face it....how often have you seen a ruling go against Bob?....lol).

About as often as one has gone against me.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Still, I think my example shown of a pitcher doing something totally within the pitching directives and where he has obvious intent to deceive is highly analagous to the situation we've been discussing here.

In my analogy, the runner is expected to know the rule that the pitcher need be on or astride the rubber without the ball.

I think you said "need" when you meant "cannot."

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

In the discussed situation, the runner should also know that once the pivot foot rises from the set position a legal pitch cannot occur. So, when the pitcher is not on or astride the rubber, AND when the pitcher's pivot rises from the set position----THERE IS NO DECEPTION OUTSIDE OF THE RULES---even if there is intent to try to deceive.

You continue to overlook the most salient statement in Evans' response: "Deception is acceptable as
long as it is mechanically legal." In the play that was the subject of this thread, the high, slow, deliberate raising of the leg - judged to be employed in order to trick the runner into believing a pitching motion has begun - constitutes an illegal disengagement of the rubber. In one of my very first posts in this thread, I noted that a disengagement must be completed with some "normalcy," and Mr. Evans response confirmed that understanding. Haven't you ever had a jump-spin-no-throw balk argued by the coach who pleaded "but he stepped off!!" If the disengagement was so close to a jump spin move that it was NOT a clearly discernible disengagement, then it's NOT a disengagement, it's a jump-spin. Balk it, unless you're one of those ball/strike fair/foul out/safe umpires who doesn't have the balls to make the controversial calls.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

So, let's add one for Evans to rule on.............
After a foul ball F3 keeps the ball while F1 takes the rubber and U1 declares play. As R1 steps off the 1B he is tagged by F3............
Is this a balk, or is this nothing since the ball was never legally put in play? Certainly there is INTENT to deceive the runner.........

(snip the redundant classic bfair drivel)

This may be a stretch, but I'm pretty sure Jim Evans would agree that you cannot balk with a dead ball. I do, however, remember the noted Internet umpire guru Jim Porter arguing that a balk should be called in your described situation. Perhaps you could look him up and continue this fascinating hypothetical with him.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair

Still, Dave.......I'll accept Evans' ruling.
I'll chalk it up along Rick Roder's one time statement that he'd give credit to a runner for touching a missed base after that runner was retired............
Remember that one ?????????????

Even the authorities make poor decisions at times........

Wow, that's one hell of an "acceptance." The truth is, you're not "accepting" the Evans ruling. You're arguing with it, challenging it, ridiculing it, and LOL'ing all over the place with it. And all that tells me is, you simply don't get it.

[Kaliix]

"Wow, that's one hell of an "acceptance." The truth is, you're not "accepting" the Evans ruling. You're arguing with it, challenging it, ridiculing it, and LOL'ing all over the place with it. And all that tells me is, you simply don't get it."

Unfortunately Dave, most people here didn't get it before, don't get it now and still won't accept it.

It's real simple. The term backward off means just that, backward and off. That is why Mr. Evan's called the raising the knee to the chest move illegal. It is not a proper disengagement according to the rules and is done for one purpose, to deceive the runner. There is no other legitimate reason to do it.

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cbfoulds

Some time back, I'm BU; RHP uses a very unremarkable stretch/step/pitch kinda motion for 3 innings. 4th inning, R2: same F1 makes a VERY different move; hard to describe, but he brings his left knee up sharply, across his body toward 2d turning his torso as well, although his left foot does NOT cross behind the rubber [not that it matters, in this case]. R2 and the base coaches conclude that F1 is going to 2d, but they are very wrong, as he continues his motion and delivers to the plate "without hesitation or interruption", while R2 is picking himself out of the dirt.

Let us be clear: there was nothing about the "new" motion that in any way violated any of the published pitching rules- it was, by itself, mechanically a perfectly legal delivery. It was, however, clearly "intended to deceive" the runner [and maybe the batter]; and it suceeded spectacularly in doing so.

Some people on the field [including one of the officials] though this was a balk, because F1 "intentionally deceived" the runner.

WOULD YOU [and maybe Jim E.] AGREE? Or would you agree with the other half of the observers, who saw no balk.

I can speak unequivocally for me, and only hypothetically (but rather confidently) for Mr. Evans. No balk.

As Evans said in his response to the play in this thread, "Deception is acceptable as long as it is mechanically legal. (Otherwise, how would a pitcher ever pickoff a runner?)

I see that statement as definitively answering your question, but I would add that the old "he does it on every pitch, so it must be OK..." is an old umpires' wives tale. A pitcher is obliged to pitch legally; he is under no obligation to pitch with the same motion on every pitch. High leg kick or slide step, set or windup, Luis Tiant move or Jamie Moyer - it doesn't matter, as long as it is legal.

The illegal mechanic in the inciting play was the unorthodox disengagement. Combined with the judgement that the move was calculated to trick a runner into believing a motion to pitch had begun, judging the move to be a balk is fully consistent with the spirit and intent (and letter) of the balk rules.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Wow, that's one hell of an "acceptance." The truth is, you're not "accepting" the Evans ruling. You're arguing with it, challenging it, ridiculing it, and LOL'ing all over the place with it. And all that tells me is, you simply don't get it.

No, Dave......I do accept his ruling.
I don't like it though, and I think the forum (not the field) is the place to discuss that point---and why I don't like it.

The point is, the Evans ruling protects stupidity of the player within the basics of the game. It's no different than this most ridiculous Fed caseplay:

With runners on first and second and one out, the batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop. The second baseman calls "I got it" and acts as if it is a pop-up. The runners stay at their respective bases and a double play is made, second to first. RULING: This is verbal obstruction. Runners will be awarded third and second. There are two outs since the out on the batter-runner will stand. (2-22-1; 8-3-2)

In this Fed case (from 1998 website internet interpretations), both runners should clearly see this ball hit on the ground and know they are forced to run. Still, the Fed rules verbal obstruction on F4. It's unreasonable to protect their stupidity of not running with a verbal obstruction infraction. The runner is expected to have some basic knowledge of the game despite F4's intent to confuse. There is no deception (confusion) caused by F4 since the ball is on the ground.

With the high raise of the pivot foot from the set position, the pitcher cannot legally deliver a pitch. Any runner (and umpire) should know that. With that said, THERE IS NO DECEPTION despite F1's desire to deceive. To protect a runner's stupidity here is also unreasonable.

Still, Dave, the rulings are made and I do accept them.
Fed once had a ruling in a caseplay I thought was very stupid. I made a point of directly emailing them in Indianapolis, highlighting their caseplay, and advising why I thought their ruling was poor. In the following year's casebook they reversed their ruling. Not to say it was a result of me since perhaps others had highlighted the stupid ruling, but once a different perspective was provided perhaps they saw the err of their decision. I don't know if Evans was provided the positions of the differing parties regarding this issue, but I certainly don't believe Evans made a good ruling here. That's not to say I won't accept it, but only my criticism of it.

THERE IS NO DECEPTION when the pitcher raises his pivot foot from the set position. The pitcher cannot legally deliver a pitch, and he has not simulated any action he uses in his delivery. Raising of his pivot foot from the set position IS NOT part of any legal pitching motion.

Poor rulings exist in baseball.
Chalk this one amongst those.........


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by Kaliix
Unfortunately Dave, most people here didn't get it before, don't get it now and still won't accept it.

You have to admit (or hopefully, you are capable of seeing the other point of view) that this move, when broken down doesn't "seem" to be a violation.

1) Is the pivot foot being used to disengage the rubber? Yes
2) Does the pivot foot come down behind the rubber? Yes
3) Is there any other ancillary movement before the pivot foot comes down? No
4) Is this move deceiving? No (except to maybe the Russian Ballet Troupe)

Evans' rule interp combines 1 and 2 (as you did, K) and declares a high step an illegal disengagement and an action performed to deceive the runner.

If I ever see it, I'll call it. Doesn't mean I like it though.

On a side note... As one who was picked off 1st base by a LHP a few times, I wish "step towards a base" was taken as literally as "backwards off"

[Kaliix]

If the deception is part of a legal movement, deception is fine.

The fake to third throw to first move shouldn't fool anyone. Yet I've seen it work atleast once a year at the major league level and in a H.S. varsity game this year.

The move in question is illegal because both the backward and off motions have to occur at about the same time. Maybe the pitcher has to pick his leg up a little first to clear the rubber but after that, he's got to move the foot back, not continue up for another foot and a half. That's why Mr. Evans called it an illegal disengagement. The rule reads "backward off".

And I agree, the pitcher could not pitch lifting up his pivot foot. But it's the motion of lifting the leg that is the problem. The rule is written so it is the motion that is the determining factor. Does the pitcher lift his non-pivot leg up to his waist or chest to pitch? Answer - Yes.

So if that same motion is done using the pivot leg, the motion is the same, picking up the leg. It is done with a different leg, yes, but the motion is still the same.

Originally posted by Bfair

No, Dave......I do accept his ruling.
I don't like it though, and I think the forum (not the field) is the place to discuss that point---and why I don't like it.

The point is, the Evans ruling protects stupidity of the player within the basics of the game. It's no different than this most ridiculous Fed caseplay:

With runners on first and second and one out, the batter hits a ground ball to the shortstop. The second baseman calls "I got it" and acts as if it is a pop-up. The runners stay at their respective bases and a double play is made, second to first. RULING: This is verbal obstruction. Runners will be awarded third and second. There are two outs since the out on the batter-runner will stand. (2-22-1; 8-3-2)

In this Fed case (from 1998 website internet interpretations), both runners should clearly see this ball hit on the ground and know they are forced to run. Still, the Fed rules verbal obstruction on F4. It's unreasonable to protect their stupidity of not running with a verbal obstruction infraction. The runner is expected to have some basic knowledge of the game despite F4's intent to confuse. There is no deception (confusion) caused by F4 since the ball is on the ground.

With the high raise of the pivot foot from the set position, the pitcher cannot legally deliver a pitch. Any runner (and umpire) should know that. With that said, THERE IS NO DECEPTION despite F1's desire to deceive. To protect a runner's stupidity here is also unreasonable.

Still, Dave, the rulings are made and I do accept them.
Fed once had a ruling in a caseplay I thought was very stupid. I made a point of directly emailing them in Indianapolis, highlighting their caseplay, and advising why I thought their ruling was poor. In the following year's casebook they reversed their ruling. Not to say it was a result of me since perhaps others had highlighted the stupid ruling, but once a different perspective was provided perhaps they saw the err of their decision. I don't know if Evans was provided the positions of the differing parties regarding this issue, but I certainly don't believe Evans made a good ruling here. That's not to say I won't accept it, but only my criticism of it.

THERE IS NO DECEPTION when the pitcher raises his pivot foot from the set position. The pitcher cannot legally deliver a pitch, and he has not simulated any action he uses in his delivery. Raising of his pivot foot from the set position IS NOT part of any legal pitching motion.

Poor rulings exist in baseball.
Chalk this one amongst those.........


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Kaliix]

3) Is there any other ancillary movement before the pivot foot comes down?

Answer - Yes, the pivot foot went straight up for 18 inches to 2 feet. That's the part your missing.

Backward and off have to occur at the same time. Otherwise they are two separate and distinct movements and that isn't how the rule is written.

And I agree, the move shouldn't be deceiving. But the intent is to deceive. There is no other reason to pick your leg up that high when taking a 6 inch step back.

The move is by rule, not allowed in the windup. Why would you allow it in the set?

Originally posted by Matthew F

You have to admit (or hopefully, you are capable of seeing the other point of view) that this move, when broken down doesn't "seem" to be a violation.

1) Is the pivot foot being used to disengage the rubber? Yes
2) Does the pivot foot come down behind the rubber? Yes
3) Is there any other ancillary movement before the pivot foot comes down? No
4) Is this move deceiving? No (except to maybe the Russian Ballet Troupe)

Evans' rule interp combines 1 and 2 (as you did, K) and declares a high step an illegal disengagement and an action performed to deceive the runner.

If I ever see it, I'll call it. Doesn't mean I like it though.

On a side note... As one who was picked off 1st base by a LHP a few times, I wish "step towards a base" was taken as literally as "backwards off"

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by Matthew F
(or hopefully, you are capable of seeing the other point of view)

Guess I was wrong.

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by Kaliix
The move is by rule, not allowed in the windup. Why would you allow it in the set?

And please show me that rule.

[Kaliix]

OBR 8.01 (a) The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot free. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

The only standard interpretation that I know of to this rule is that a step to the side is also legal.

In the set position, you could lift your leg up to throw to a base or pitch. Just not to disengage the rubber.

That is why the lefty, Andy Pettite type pick off move is legal. (And very deceptive as well, which is fine, because it is not against the rules)

Originally posted by Matthew F

And please show me that rule.

[Matthew F]

Originally posted by Kaliix
OBR 8.01 (a) The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his entire pivot foot on, or in front of and touching and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot free. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.

I do beleive that this part of the rule has to do with the delivery. Else, how do you allow for the pitcher to disengage the rubber from the windup? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have to raise your pivot foot from the ground to disengage the rubber?!? And the pitcher is allowed to disengage the rubber from the windup position - correct?

This does not satisfy your declaration; please try to find this rule you talk about again...
[B]

Originally posted by Kaliix
The move is by rule, not allowed in the windup. Why would you allow it in the set?