New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[cbfoulds]

Well, Dave, being wrong is something I am familiar with. The point is not to stay wrong. Which is, I think, your point.
As for "I don't understand": what I can't figgure out is where you draw the line: as someone [me?] wrote earlier - if 6" up before back is OK, why is 12, 18, or 24 NOT OK; and on what rule language do we base that distinction?
I think I can apply Evans' interp. on the field, and as I've said, I have no trouble accepting it.
It may be a part of my problem that the move under discussion is, for me, purely theoretical: I've never seen anything like it. Maybe if I saw it done, I'd understand why that deceptive move is a balk, and others are not. Or maybe, like the OP [who saw it again], seeing it with this discussion in mind would only confirm my failure to "see" this balk.