New Balk - or not I'm not sure.

[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