New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[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]