This is probably a HTBT, but here is what i have.

R1 - Right handed pitcher.

Pitcher in stretch comes to the set position. Looks toward the base runner, (head turn only). Lifts his Pivot foot, straight up in the air as High as he can, (like a lefty pitcher would do with his free foot before deciding home or first base) then steps off and quickly spins to see what runner is doing.

Now I balked this, I said and still believe this particular fact, the pitcher did this action for the sole purpose of decieving the runner. I also believed at the split second, but am waivering now that the move is {"mimicing"} a motion naturally associated with a pitch.

Has anyone else ever seen this, is it a balk? What are your thoughts??

Not many pitchers begin their motion by lifting their PIVOT foot.
Was there any other rule you thought this violated?
O/W, I'm having a hard time seeing a balk.
Don't care that he "did it to decieve...": that ain't illegal, much less a balk.
Just 'cause it's ugly doesn't make it a balk.

I'm OK with the balk call here. It's sort of akin to the pitcher who legally disengages but raises his hands in a windup-simulation to achieve a similar kind of deception.

I dunno: from the description, the only thing he did was step off in a weird way. If nothing else was moving and simulating the start of a pitch, if ALL he did was lift his pivot foot up high in the process of stepping off, then I don't see a balk.

The rules don't say how a pitcher has to step off. Deception per se is not against the rules. Only illegal deception is, so I'd have to hear what else he did that was illegal before I'd think there was a balk here.

I have never seen this one before, but I am pretty sure I would not balk it. He stepped off, it was just a high step.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
Pivot foot comes up and backwards, correct?? He can pick his nose, do whatever, I see this as disengagement of rubber, everyone else should also. When I played, we always watched the feet of F1, if that right heel lifted, pick-off was coming

I'm with you here Dave. Same sitch today during playoffs. Pitcher seemed confused and lifted PIVOT foot but brought his hands up to simulate pitch, I balked him. No complaint from Dcoach.

The description in 8.01 (b) says the pitcher may "...step backward off the pitchers plate with his pivot foot."

Bringing the pivot foot up is NOT stepping backward off the pitchers plate. Additionally, since the pivot foot has now disengaged, you could argue that he is making a motion naturally associated with his pitch.

In any event, it seems like a balk to me.

Has a pitcher do that very thing the other day. Balk!

I see some grey area here and we also have some varying opinions, so I'm going to play devil's advocate..

The pivot foot must be lifted up (direction) before it goes back (direction), else how would a pitcher get his/her foot out of the hole in front of the rubber to the area behind the rubber?

So... to what degree of lifting the pivot foot do you allow before moving the foot back? 1 inch? 1 foot? Does speed of the disengagement factor in?

When you say lifts pivot foot "like a lefty pitcher would do" are you saying the pivot foot went towards 3b? If so, that is not a step back, balk.

lift
 

no the lift was straight up, knee to chest almost then back off the ound, I'm still arguing with myself on this one. Not sure what I'd do where I to see it again.

If you don't know what rule he violated, how can you call it a balk? Sounds like a nothing to me.

A wise man once told me: if you can't describe how/why F1 balked, USING THE WORDS OF THE ACTUAL RULE, you are probably better off not calling it, 'cause it probably was NOT a balk.

This pitcher has done nothing illegal except telegraph that he must step backward with his pivot foot (which I assume he eventually did). It sounds amongst the worst pickoff moves ever made. Are we now to put parameters on how high or how low his pivot foot must rise in order to step backward off the rubber?

This is not the same as making a motion associated with his pitch---whether on or off the rubber.
A pitcher does not raise his pivot foot from the set position to make a pitch.

If a runner is deceived by such a LEGAL but terrible move, then he deserves to be out and his basecoach banished from the team.

NOW.......if the pitcher picks up his pivot foot and simultaneously spins to the base on his nonpivot foot, then it's a simple balk to call.

Sometimes ugly is merely ugly........but ugly doesn't mean it's illegal.......


Just my opinion,

Freix

The pitcher can lift his foot up enough to clear the rubber and set it down. Obviously the leg has to be up 3"-6" before stepping back. If he brings it up in a manner suggesting that he is lifting his leg up like he would when he is pitching, it's a balk.

Well, yes. In disengaging the rubber, the pitcher is expected to do so with some normalcy. There is an instructional statement in 8.05 Penalty that is relevant to this situation:

<i>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.</i>

In the situation as given, the pitcher is deliberately simulating a pitching motion with his pivot foot. How is this different from the pitcher who steps off while raising his hands over his head in a simulated windup motion? In both cases, the pitcher is deliberately deceiving the base runner with a BS move. Balk it and nip that s--t in the bud.

How is it different? I'll tell you... The pitcher only disengaged the rubber with their pivot foot (i.e. did not simulate a pitch).

I'm not sure how or why a balk should be called on a move expressly allowed in the rules. Granted the move was exaggerated (high and slow - is there a breakpoint on what is too high or too slow?), what other legal movements do we balk???

...a pitcher, coming to the set position, slowly brings his hands together high above his head and slowly brings thems down, then quickly steps towards 1st with their non-pivot foot and throws. Is this a balk since a legal move was performed in an slow, high and exaggerated manner?

I do remember one thing about balks that I was taught years ago and that was, If it fooled you and the runner (thought he was going to deliver a pitch and ended up throwing to first), it was probably a balk. So this may be a case of "having to see it" on my part.

Matt,
Here is why a balk should be called. The rules say the pitcher can step backward off the pitchers plate with his pivot foot. The rule does not say that the pitcher can lift his leg up to his chest, simulating a pitching motion, to disengage the rubber.

The pitcher didn't step backward off the pitchers plate, he lifted his leg two feet up in the air and then back.

Therefore he violated the rule and it is a balk.

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

Pardon my frustration, but how hard is this to understand?

8.01 (b) says the pitcher may "...step backward off the pitchers plate with his pivot foot."

Any normal definition of a step does not include someone bringing their knee up to meet their chest. That is not a step!

A step is when someone lifts their foot up enough to avoid dragging it on the ground. Maybe even a few extra inches, but no more. Watch anyone take a step and that is what they do.

Therefore, I'll say it again, the pitcher did not step backward off the pitchers plate with his pivot foot he brought it up to his chest first which is not a step backward. It is an exagerated lifting of the leg, followed by a step. That is a balk!

Also, since he lifted his leg up to his chest, he was now not in contact with the pitchers plate. Since he was not in contact and was simulating a pitching motion while not in contact with the pitchers plate,Balk!

Either way.

Mimicing a pitch?
 

I don't think that the pitcher could have delivered a legal pitch after the pivot foot was lifted, so I don't see how this move mimics a pitch.

-LL

LilLeaguer nailed you, K.


Well- my Webster's New Collegiate defines a "step" as: an advance or movement made by one removal of the foot ... to advance or receed by raising and moving one foot to another resting place ... any combination of foot movements and body movements constituting a single unit or pattern [i.e.: dance step]..... None of which seems to exclude this "step". There is no definition of "step" in the Rule Book, so I'm afraid that you are just making this one ["normal definition of step"] up.
Ain't no rule says 3-6 inches is OK but 12 [or 18... or 36...] isn't.

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? Now, if he raised his arms/ "wound up" during this [admittedly "exagerated"] step w/ his pivot foot: OK, that's a balk; but it's for starting his delivery and not delivering to the plate. And, oops: the original sitch says nothing about F1 doing this. In fact, from the original post, F1's hands may never have moved from his "set".

As I originally [and now LilLeaguer] posted: lifting the PIVOT foot is kinda hard to make a part of anyone's pitching motion.

Got any actual RULE [from the Book, now - not "definitions" YOU make up] you think this might have violated? 'Cause he DID "step off backwards", and he DID NOT make any motion(s) naturally associated with his pitching delivery. I'll take a case-play cite, or the opinion of recogized or General Authority, but tortured logic and unpublished "normal definitions" that you are using aren't cutting it.

Do we also limit the height of "steps" mentioned elsewhere in the rules?

The rules state that a pitcher from the windup, may with his "free" foot, take one step backward and one step forward in delivering the pitch.

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.

Saw it again
 

And I must say, I didn't balk it, nor did I think it was a balk at all after viewing it again. I think the first time just caught me off guard. also the senario in the game was very different and I saw the usefulness of the move, and have come full circle.

For a note, the move was done again at bases loaded, 3-2, 2 outs, to see if the runners would start early. And no it didn't work.

Answer this question, is raising your leg up to your chest, which means you are raising your leg a good two feet of the ground, a step bacward.

If that is a step backward, you've got no argument from me. You and I both know that ain't so.

There is no height given in your definition or the rule book. So we have to use our common sense. How do people normally step? Ask anyone to take a step backwards. If one out of a thousand lifts their knee up to their waist or higher to step backward, you'd be lucky.

All one thousand people would just lift their knee up enough so that their heel clears the ground by a few inches. Because that is the normal way people step, by convention.

And now your trying to argue that bringing the knee up to the chest is a step backward, when no one steps that way. That is excedingly weak.

The rule states the pitcher must STEP BACKWARDS. Not do the "El Duque"!

Does raising a knee up high, like to your waist or chest, look like a motion associated with a pitch? It doesn't matter which leg it is, it is still a motion associated with a pitch. The only time it wouldn't be, is if a pitcher continually slides steps from the set.

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

Lifting your leg up AND placing it on the ground is a step. The question becomes, did the leg movement go forward or backward? Forward, it's a balk; backward, it's legally disengaging the rubber.

That's my take.

I'm in total agreement with your comments, Matthew......

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. With that in mind, how can it be claimed that the pitcher is simulating a motion associated with his pitch? Since it's definitely not part of his pitching motion, why should there be any doubt in an umpire's mind as to whether or not it's a balk? WHY should one even apply a standard of pitcher's intent to deceive when in fact the pitcher has done nothing illegal other than, with exaggeration, initiated his step backward?

An analogy here to a pitcher having stepped back off the rubber and then raising his hands to start his windup is a poor analogy since the raising of the hands DOES simulate a motion associated with the pitch.

But let's assume you balk the pitcher.............
Please give us your explanation to the coach as to what rule in the book has been violated..........


Just my opinion,

Freix

Uh-Huh. Until it comes down, it's not "...an advance or movement made by one removal of the foot ... to advance or receed by raising and moving one foot to another resting place....". After it comes down, it's a step. If it lands behind the rubber, it's a "step backwards" [assuming you started on or in front of the rubber]. 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.

And:
...that's just silly. Lifting the PIVOT leg is NEVER "associated with ..." ANY form of pitching motion; and the rule does not ask if what F1 does "looks like" a motion naturally associated with the delivery. Pitchers, esp. LHP are allowed all kinds of motions that "look like" the beginning of a pitching delivery, and aren't.
"Naturally associated with ...", in this case, is not the same thing as "capable of fooling a runner [or umpire] into seeing ...". [Although, I have to admit, "fooling the umpire" results in a lot of called balks, many of which are not balks-by-rule, but that's the risk they take if the move is "too good"]
You are reaallly reaching, K.

Okay try this.

Jaksa/Roder states, "A pitcher can disengage properly only if he steps his pivot foot backward of and off the pitching rubber. He must do so without interruption or hesitation, and without a movement normally associated with his pitch."

The problem is that the movement of the pivot foot has two directional movements to comply with. Up is one, back is the other. Since J/R states "backward of and off the pitching rubber", both have to be done when disengaging. Not only that, but the two movements are not assigned any particular dominance, so they have to be done equally.

If you look at the motion in terms of degrees, equal directional movements, backward and up, will form a nice 45° angle. For the knee to come up to the chest, both foot and knee are pretty much moving a 90° angle.

That's because you only moving up and not backward of...

See... :-)

Still Bravo Sierra, K.
The only thing the J/R quote adds to the mix is the "without interruption or hesitation" part, and that has been presumed all along. If F1 lifts EITHER foot and "hangs" it up in the air [with nothing else moving], it's a balk. Doesn't matter how high he lifts it in that case either.

If the leg/foot keeps moving [up, and then down and back (or back and down)] in this case, he's all good. SURELY you are not gonna balk F1 if he lifts his pivot foot 6 inches [or less!] straight up to step back, instead of in a perfect 45* angled path?

8.01(b) "...From the set position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot."

The rule gives a direction and distance, BACKWARD off...

You have to do both, at the same time, backward and off.

If you lift your leg straight up, your not going backward... :-)

Of course I'm not going to balk a kid at 6". Not at 12" either. 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 have to assume they said step backward off for a reason and not just step off.

If they just said "step off", I'd be on your side...

Same dog, K.
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 many times have I heard the 1B coach say to his runner "watch his heels, watch his heels". Hundreds, maybe thousands. Why? Because if he picks up the pivot foot heel first he is not going to the plate. If he picks up his pivot foot heel first, I am not going to call a balk unless he moves his hands up like he is simulating, or if he sets his pivot foot back down against the rubber after lifting.

Steve got it right!
 

Exactly what I was thinking and you wrote it much better than I could have.

How can you balk a pitcher when he did nothing that is against the rules. Maybe a little wierd, but then just because it looks like a balk ...

... doesn't always mean its a balk (at least in the real world)

And good to see you're alive and kickin

Thanks
David

Hmmmmm................assuming your logic is correct.........
The pitching rules also state that a pitcher from the rubber must step directly to the base he is throwing or feinting to.........
So may I assume that if a LH F1 first raises his nonpivot foot upward and then steps toward 1B that you would balk him? Certainly that balk would follow the same logic of your explanation of the movement of the pitcher's pivot foot while moving backward........

Come to think of it........do you allow this same LH F1 to step within the 45 degree.......or must it be directly to the base?

Kalix, the 45 has been defined for us in authoritative interpretation and within accepted practice of umpiring. Certainly if in doubt on the 45 degree step, then let the intent of the pitcher guide your determination.........a good place to apply that rule of guidance which we are provided. However, we are not provided such defined limitation on how high a pitcher may raise his pivot foot while stepping backward off the rubber. 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.

Bottom line is that the action in itself should be a siren to a runner that a pitch is not occurring, and thus, the warning that he is in potential jeopardy. Any runner deceived or picked off with such a slipshod pitching move deserves his just reward, and will be better off for it. The learning experience to the runner will remain memorable for him.

As an umpire, look for that which there, but don't look for that which is not there else you will be causing yourself troubles in both your game and reputation. Know the rules, understand advantage and disadvantage within the intent of the rules, and use good judgment in applying the rules (which is not always black and white as written).

The pitcher here sounds the siren and gains no advantage.............
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.........


Just my opinion,

Freix

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).

Let's just end this once and for all.

If there is some interpretation or opinion that the situation we've been describing is not a balk, I'd love to hear it. It wouldn't be the first time I have been wrong when reading the rule book.

I've been accused of making up this interpretation. I think it is in fact the other way around. I have written the appropriate part of the rule verbatim.

8.01 (b) says the pitcher must "...step backward off the pitchers plate with his pivot foot."

A step involves lifting the leg. We all agree.

The pitcher has to step off the pitcher's plate to disengage. We all agree on this as well.

The rule states that the pitcher, to legally disengage, must step backward. That clearly gives the direction of the step.

Bringing the knee up to the chest is a step up. It is in no way a step backward. If the step is up and then the foot eventually ends up behind the rubber, we have a step up and then a step backward.

I agree that a step involoves lifting of the leg. A step also involves movement in some x-axis direction. If you step forward you lift your leg and move it forward at the same time. It is a TWO DIRECTION MOVEMENT. The legs lifts and goes forward at the same time.

So why is it that everyone is going to ignore the "backward" portion of the rule. It is written first. Even before the word "off".

Logic dictates that if the direction and movement are written together to explain the how the step is to be taken, that BOTH direction, which is "backwards", and movement, "off", which means lifting of the leg in order to step, be done at the same time.

That is a very logical, straight forward, reading of the written word. It does say "backward off".

Give me a logical reason why anyone would allow one motion, off, without the other, backward? The rule isn't written that way. You can lift the foot and move it backward at the same time.

I'm being accused of making this rule up. But it reads backward off. Not up and off.

How does one justify breaking up the two movements when they are written together?

The rule says step backwards... Does it not?

The lifting of the leg is only one part of the step. It must have DIRECTION. And that direction is given first in the explanation of the rule.

BACKWARDS!

Bfair wrote "The pitching rules also state that a pitcher from the rubber must step directly to the base he is throwing or feinting to.........
So may I assume that if a LH F1 first raises his nonpivot foot upward and then steps toward 1B that you would balk him?"

It wouldn't be a balk because the pitcher can lift his leg to either pitch or throw to a base. Since he is not disengaging the rubber, lifting the leg means he could do either.

In this case, there is a legitmate reason to lift the leg up. It could be ones natural pitching motion or it could be a step. And until the pitcher makes a movement in one direction or the other, he is not committed to doing either.

When disengaging the rubber, there is only one thing a pitcher can do. And that is step backwards to disengage.

What's the (general) purpose of the balk rule? To limit the deception of a runner by the pitcher.

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.

Since (1)there's always a hole in front of the mound and the (2) the pitcheris wearing cleats then he always will have to pick his foot up first and then backwards.

The rest is "what Bob said"

Keep it simple and stay out of trouble.

Thanks
David

I agree with you. Pick up the foot, clear the rubber and then move it backward. As I said earlier, unless the knee comes parallel with the waist, I've got nothing.

<B>Bringing the knee up to the chest is a step up. It is in no way a step backward. If the step is up and then the foot eventually ends up behind the rubber, we have a step up and then a step backward.</B>


Nahhhh. Just one awkard step. To have a step, the foot has to come down. The first move is just that, a move, motion, the beginning of a step. You got one step here.

Ah, yes. Thank you for bringing the issue back from the "how many umpires can dance on the head of a pin" realm, to the key issue - what is the general purpose of the balk rule?

I think if you re-read the original post, you will see that the umpire judged the pitcher's move to be a calculated attempt to deceive the runner, before then initiating a pickoff attempt. Specifically, he was simulating the high leg kick a pitcher sometimes performs with his FREE foot that commits such pitcher to the pitch. He was doing it with his pivot foot instead of his free foot, but the slow deliberate motion that LOOKS LIKE the free foot kick could, theoretically, trick a somewhat inattentive runner into believing the pitcher had begun a motion that committed him to the pitch.

Now, you Darwinians are apparently content to say, well OK, if the runner is THAT stupid, he deserves to be deceived by this motion and picked off. But unfortunately, that lily-livered pinko rulebook protects that runner from such acts of deception. The move is a balk. It is crystal clear that it was designed to deceive the runner. By specific, explicit rule which I've already quoted a few miles upstream in this thread, it is a balk.

It is no different from the balk move of simulating a windup motion by stepping back with the pivot foot and simultaneously raising the hands in a windup motion, then quickly turning and picking off the runner. In this move, once again, the "wrong" foot is leading the move, but it is expected that the runner won't notice this, and will then be fooled by the additional windup motion move.

Really, guys, think about this move. It's not "just something weird" that the pitcher has innocently gotten into the habit of. It is a planned, calculated move, probably cooked up by an Emerling-coach-type, practiced and executed in order to deceive a baserunner into lengthening his lead because he believes the pitcher has committed himself to the pitch.

And Bfair, it's nice to have you back but please, check the condescension at the door. Do you really want Bfair Version 2.0 to simply be deja vu all over again?

Hensley: Balk!

D-coach: Why? He stepped off.

Hensley: He can't step off LIKE THAT!

D-coach: Why not?

Hensley: He deceived the runner!

D-coach: Deception's not against the rules! I protest.



D-coach 1, Hensley OOO.

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.

My response to a request for an explanation would be "he violated 8.05(g), by making a move simulating a pitch while not in contact with the rubber." I judged that the pitcher was employing a calculated, designed move to deceive the runner into believing he had actually begun and committed himself to a pitch. There is an instruction in the rulebook that says, and I quote, "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."

Please feel free to protest my judgment call; we'll use your protest fee to buy beer and pizza for the protest committee.

The success or lack thereof of the move is not what makes it illegal. The fact that it is a designed move, calculated to deceive a runner into believing that the pitcher has begun a motion committing him to the pitch, is what makes it illegal.

You give base runners and coaches more credit for intelligence than, in my experience, they deserve.

Fishing without bait.

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

It is a balk if:....

(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate;

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.

Lifting the pivot foot/leg IS NOT a motion "naturally associated" with ANY pitching delivery. It is not a balk. If F1 intends to decieve the runners, he can suceed if and only if the runners and their base coaches are all entirely brain-dead. If that is darwinian of me, GOOD!

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.

A balk is, by definition, a judgment call. Dave's subsequent answer is NOT protestable.

We had a pitcher this season do the "windup position, step off, and then raise his arms as if starting a windup" thing. Balk. No doubt. Coach said that once he steps off he can do anything since he's a fielder. Right.

Lifting a leg in a motion so unnatural it only makes sense if done with the free foot is, as I see it, a motion naturally associated with a pitch.

"The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate"

Isn't lifting your leg up to your waist or chest a MOTION naturally associated with his pitch?

Just because it's the other leg, the MOTION is still associated with his pitch.

Balk!

Not if it's your PIVOT foot/leg.

"Not if it's your PIVOT foot/leg."

It doesn't matter which leg it is. The rule doesn't say that say that the MOTION has to occur with the right body part. You are adding things to the rule and making up your own interpretation.

The rule simply says making a MOTION associated with his pitch. Lifting the knee up to your chest is a MOTION associated with his pitch. It is done with intent to decieve.

It's a balk.

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.

mo*tion n.
The act or process of changing position or place.
The manner in which the body moves, as in walking.

It is perfectly legitimate argument based on the language of the rule.

Is lifting lifting your knee to your chest a motion associated with a pitch.

Answer - Yes

The rule says MOTION!

You cannot argue that the motion of lifting your knee up to your chest is not a motion associated with a pitch. You can't! The MOTION IS associated with a pitch. He may not actually be able to pitch that way, but the motion certainly suggests that.

The rule book also clearly gives the umpire the ability to judge the intent of the pitcher in the notes under 8.05.

It should be obvious that the intent of this movement is to deceive the runner. There is absolutely no other reason to make that type of move.

Not a backward step...
Simulating a motion while not in contact...
Judge the intent of the move...

Balk, Balk, Balk...

Nobody pitches by legally disengaging and then bringing his hands above his head either. But THAT'S considered a balk.

With your interpretation, there would essentially be no use for 8.05(g) at all. It would never come into effect. Your logic is circular.

Here are Jim Evans' comments on 8.05(g):

Customs and Usage: This prevents deception by the pitcher. Often, it is difficult for the runner to determine
whether or not the pitcher is in actual contact with the rubber. If the pitcher tries to deceive the runner in this
manner, it shall be called a balk.

A game in which the umpire is allowing the abuse of 8.05(g) with moves such as the one that began this thread, or the other popular trick move that should be balked but apparently you guys wouldn't balk - in which the pitcher from windup steps backwards with his pivot foot while raising his arms in a windup move, and then quickly pivots and picks off the runner - will surely resemble "Calvinball" quite a bit more than the games in which these bush-league, Emerling-style calculated moves to deceive the runners are appropriately nipped in the bud by being balked.

But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG

Quote:

But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first.

But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement.

You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Quote:

Originally posted by DG Quote: But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first. But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement. You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Quote:

Originally posted by DG Quote: But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first. But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement. You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other.

Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it 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.

THANK YOU
 

...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.

The voice of reason, and from all places, Illinois.

That's a horse**** response. I've never argued that stepping off from the set position with the pivot foot is a balk. You're creating a strawman.

Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it 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. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, from windup, the normal step back, IF NOT FOLLOWED BY A PITCH, should be a balk. I don't find fault with Kalix's logic as you've summarized it.

We're back into umpires dancing on the head of a pin. Ironic that one of your posts brought us back from that realm, and now another of yours has completed the roundtrip back into the dancing world.

Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules.

Bob, that is the worst attempt at a logical arguement I seen in a while. We are talking about a step off from the set position, not the windup. No one steps back with the non pivot foot from the stretch. A step back with the non pivot foot in the windup is a motion associated with a pitch and in fact commits the pitcher to pitch, as I am sure you know.

Trying to compare that step back with the non pivot foot in the windup to a disengagement step back with the pivot foot in the set position are apples and oranges. It is a lousy attempt at a analogy and a worse attempt at a logical arguement.

How about one of you guys trying to logically argue the points that have been brought up.

1)The rule says the pitcher must STEP BACKWARD OFF the plate. Why are you allowing any motion but what is written in the rule?

No one has answered that yet. Don't tell me that lifting his leg up to his chest is a step backward. There are two motions indicated in the rule, backwards and off. Why are you allowing one motion to occur with out enforcing the other. Backwards is even written first in the rule and yet you are going to allow a pitcher to lift his leg to the sky, rationalizing this by saying that he will eventually step back.

2)The rule says the pitcher may not make a motion associated with his pitch while disengaged from the rubber. There is only one time when a right handed pitcher brings a knee up to his waist or chest when on the mound. That is when he is making a motion to pitch (or possibly step and throw to third, but that is not the case in this situation). At no other time does that ever normally happen. When a leg comes up that high, it's to pitch. To do it with the other leg is making that exact same MOTION as you would to pitch. The rule says making a MOTION associated with a pitch is against the rule. It is that motion that is being simulated for only one purpose, to deceive the runner. The rule doesn't specify whether the motion is being done with the right body part or not. It only says motion because that is all that is needed to be deceptive. Which leads us to...

3)The balk rules clearly give the umpire the right to judge intent. There is no legitimate reason to raise you leg up that high when disengaging, except to try and fool the runner. No legitimate reason that anyone so far in this thread has come up with. That is because the intent of such a move is clear, it is an intent to deceive.

The rule says backward off and lifting the leg to the sky is not a step backward. Lifting the leg up to the chest is only ever associated with a pitch for a right handed pitcher. The intent of such a move has one purpose only, that is to deceive the runner.

And no good arguements that address the actual points...


[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave Hensley Quote: Originally posted by DG Quote: But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first. But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement. You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other. Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it 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.

Logic?
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Kaliix
Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules.

Bob, that is the worst attempt at a logical arguement I seen in a while. We are talking about a step off from the set position, not the windup. No one steps back with the non pivot foot from the stretch. A step back with the non pivot foot in the windup is a motion associated with a pitch and in fact commits the pitcher to pitch, as I am sure you know.

Trying to compare that step back with the non pivot foot in the windup to a disengagement step back with the pivot foot in the set position are apples and oranges. It is a lousy attempt at a analogy and a worse attempt at a logical arguement.

How about one of you guys trying to logically argue the points that have been brought up.

1)The rule says the pitcher must STEP BACKWARD OFF the plate. Why are you allowing any motion but what is written in the rule?

No one has answered that yet. Don't tell me that lifting his leg up to his chest is a step backward. There are two motions indicated in the rule, backwards and off. Why are you allowing one motion to occur with out enforcing the other. Backwards is even written first in the rule and yet you are going to allow a pitcher to lift his leg to the sky, rationalizing this by saying that he will eventually step back.

2)The rule says the pitcher may not make a motion associated with his pitch while disengaged from the rubber. There is only one time when a right handed pitcher brings a knee up to his waist or chest when on the mound. That is when he is making a motion to pitch (or possibly step and throw to third, but that is not the case in this situation). At no other time does that ever normally happen. When a leg comes up that high, it's to pitch. To do it with the other leg is making that exact same MOTION as you would to pitch. The rule says making a MOTION associated with a pitch is against the rule. It is that motion that is being simulated for only one purpose, to deceive the runner. The rule doesn't specify whether the motion is being done with the right body part or not. It only says motion because that is all that is needed to be deceptive. Which leads us to...

3)The balk rules clearly give the umpire the right to judge intent. There is no legitimate reason to raise you leg up that high when disengaging, except to try and fool the runner. No legitimate reason that anyone so far in this thread has come up with. That is because the intent of such a move is clear, it is an intent to deceive.

The rule says backward off and lifting the leg to the sky is not a step backward. Lifting the leg up to the chest is only ever associated with a pitch for a right handed pitcher. The intent of such a move has one purpose only, that is to deceive the runner.

And no good arguements that address the actual points...

Quote:

Originally posted by bob jenkins Quote: Originally posted by Dave Hensley Quote: Originally posted by DG Quote: But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first. But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement. You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other. Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it 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.

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.

There is no rule that says anything different.

It not only makes sense, but it makes common sense.

Just because its different doesn't make it a balk.

I thought Bob explained it very well above as far as your other points.

Thanks
David

<B>"Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules."</B>

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.

Re: Logic?
 

"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."

I never said there was a rule that said F1 cannot lift his knee up as he steps backward. As I mentioned earlier, the rule indicates TWO motions, backward off. Stepping off can only be interpreted as removing the pivot foot from the rubber. The only two ways to do that are to slide it off in some direction or lift the leg up.

Since saying the pitcher only has to step off leaves alot of room for which way the motion off has to occur, the rulesmakers clarified the motion by saying backward off. Putting the term backward in the description of how the pitcher must disengage leaves no doubt as to how the step off must occur. It must occur backward. The leg can raise up or slide off and the direction of movement, by the rule, must occur backward.

Since the both backward and off are the indicated motions, they should reasonably occur at about the same time. Now, you could lift up a bit more at first or just slide the foot straight back. But to allow two feet of motion off (straight up) without any motion backward clearly indicates you are doing one without the other.

I have taken great pains to describe the step as backward off and not just backward. I am not just quoting part of the rule.

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.

And Bob compared a step from the windup versus a step from the set. Two very different things. In fact the step Bob is taking about from the windup is specifically addressed in the rule under 8.01 (a) "He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the plate, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot."

Since Bob's arguement compared two different pitching position that fall under different rules (under the same section) and the step that he refers to is actually addressed in the rule, it is a poor arguement.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Quote:

Originally posted by Kaliix Now I know why baseball rules are so !#@%$ed up. Because baseball umpires can't follow simple logic and those are the same guys that wrote the rules. Bob, that is the worst attempt at a logical arguement I seen in a while. We are talking about a step off from the set position, not the windup. No one steps back with the non pivot foot from the stretch. A step back with the non pivot foot in the windup is a motion associated with a pitch and in fact commits the pitcher to pitch, as I am sure you know. Trying to compare that step back with the non pivot foot in the windup to a disengagement step back with the pivot foot in the set position are apples and oranges. It is a lousy attempt at a analogy and a worse attempt at a logical arguement. How about one of you guys trying to logically argue the points that have been brought up. 1)The rule says the pitcher must STEP BACKWARD OFF the plate. Why are you allowing any motion but what is written in the rule? No one has answered that yet. Don't tell me that lifting his leg up to his chest is a step backward. There are two motions indicated in the rule, backwards and off. Why are you allowing one motion to occur with out enforcing the other. Backwards is even written first in the rule and yet you are going to allow a pitcher to lift his leg to the sky, rationalizing this by saying that he will eventually step back. 2)The rule says the pitcher may not make a motion associated with his pitch while disengaged from the rubber. There is only one time when a right handed pitcher brings a knee up to his waist or chest when on the mound. That is when he is making a motion to pitch (or possibly step and throw to third, but that is not the case in this situation). At no other time does that ever normally happen. When a leg comes up that high, it's to pitch. To do it with the other leg is making that exact same MOTION as you would to pitch. The rule says making a MOTION associated with a pitch is against the rule. It is that motion that is being simulated for only one purpose, to deceive the runner. The rule doesn't specify whether the motion is being done with the right body part or not. It only says motion because that is all that is needed to be deceptive. Which leads us to... 3)The balk rules clearly give the umpire the right to judge intent. There is no legitimate reason to raise you leg up that high when disengaging, except to try and fool the runner. No legitimate reason that anyone so far in this thread has come up with. That is because the intent of such a move is clear, it is an intent to deceive. The rule says backward off and lifting the leg to the sky is not a step backward. Lifting the leg up to the chest is only ever associated with a pitch for a right handed pitcher. The intent of such a move has one purpose only, that is to deceive the runner. And no good arguements that address the actual points... Quote: Originally posted by bob jenkins Quote: Originally posted by Dave Hensley Quote: Originally posted by DG Quote: But when pitching from the windup everybody takes a step, usually backwards, while raising their hands. Nobody pitches from the set by picking up their pivot foot first. But when pitching from the windup nobody takes a step backwards WITH THEIR PIVOT FOOT, either, unless they are employing the trick move that should be balked. The two situations are analogous, despite your argument that they are fundamentally different. If you agree that the fake move from windup should be balked, then you should agree that the fake move from set should also be balked. If you believe that the fake move from set is OK, a legal disengagement, then you should believe that the fake move from windup is also OK, a legal disengagement. You cannot logically reconcile balking one move and not balking the other. Sure I can -- it's not the step in either case that makes it a balk. It's the raising of the arms that makes it 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. 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. There is no rule that says anything different. It not only makes sense, but it makes common sense. Just because its different doesn't make it a balk. I thought Bob explained it very well above as far as your other points. Thanks David

Bob makes no sense Garth. We are talking about a step off from the set, not a step backward from the windup. Two different things. The step backward from the windup is written in the windup rule. In fact, the windup rule clearly states that the pitcher should not "raise either foot from the ground, except in the actual delivery of the ball to the batter,..."

They seem to be saying that the raising of the leg in windup indicates, and in fact demands, that the pitcher pitch.

Since from the set, the pitcher can also raise his leg to throw to a base or pitch, it logically follows that the raising of a leg indicates a throw to a base or a pitch. Since the pitcher in this case does it while stepping off, it means that he made a motion associated with a pitch (or a throw to a base) and did neither. Since the motion occured while not in contact that makes it a balk?

What other reason could there be for lifting the leg like that? There isn't one. The intent is clear, to deceive.

Hummm....

<B>"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."</B>

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.

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.

[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.
</B>

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]

Jim Evans response to the play
 

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:

<font color=navy>The pitcher is required to step <u>backward</u> 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.</font>

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.

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]

Re: Jim Evans response to the play
 

Thank you so much Dave!

:eek:

:D

Re: Jim Evans response to the play
 

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.

Re: Re: Jim Evans response to the play
 

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."

:)

[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?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

Quote:

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:

<hr>
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.
<hr>

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.

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."

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.

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

[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.

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.

By Kalix's count, there were 13 different participants arguing the "no balk" side. At this point, you and Garth are the only two to have acknowledged the Evans ruling.

It's a pity you don't understand Evans' rationale. Kalix and I have (independently of each other) spent quite a bit of time explaining and defending that rationale, in terms that I thought were pretty understandable.

I don't remember anything from you I would consider arrogant. I did consider your suggestion that I actually read the rule I was citing to be condescending and unnecessary. I generally don't enter a debate on a baseball rule unless I've read it, as well as everything else in the supporting authoritative literature I own related to it, and have a reasonable level of confidence that I know what I'm talking about.

I give you and Garth credit for stepping up and acknowledging that a legitimate authority took a position contrary to yours on the play in question. A wise man once told me there is no dishonor in embracing three simple little words, when the occasion calls for it - "I stand corrected."

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.

I hereby solemnly acknowledge that the quotation posted in this thread and attributed to Jim Evans seems to conflict with a post I made.

Yes, that's hedged and not much of a mea culpa, and for two main reasons:

1. Somebody (maybe CB) pointed out that there's a fine line involved in this play. The pitcher must pick up his foot to step off, and Evans seems to be supporting the view that if he picks it up "too high," then that's a balk. OK, fine, I'll take instruction: but what's too high? It seems: the step is too high when it becomes "deceptive." A number of us have argued that it's NOT deceptive, but, like Evans, let's ignore that argument and move on to...

2. Moreover, the Evans quotation still doesn't answer an important question about this issue: deception is illegal when it confers an unfair advantage. Nobody (including Evans) has explained what unfair advantage accrues to the defense from this dumb move. In deciding unfair advantage, one cannot assume that the opponent is stupid or ignorant of the rules (those are fair advantages).

Umpiring is a sphere of authority, not one of logic. Therefore, if authority instructs me that this is an instance of illegal deception, then I will call it that way. I still do not see the rationale, but I suppose that my view will matter only if I start my own umpire academy...

Oh, and for the record, Dave shares Evans's reasoning (illegal deception), but Kallix's was different: he said that lifting the pivot foot up high was not a step backwards. Sorry, that's not the call.

Edited because I had "offense" where I meant "defense" under #2.

[Edited by mbyron on May 31st, 2005 at 08:59 PM]

after reading
 

I agree with your post. Evans is indeed an authority on the rules and i understand his post, but i also understand that he is never going to see this play.

So as mbyron stated above he's basing his opinion on the fact that he is deceiving the runner and that as we know is umpires interpretation.

So I agree with Evans that if I were to see this move I would call it a balk, but I would have to be convinced that the runner was deceived before calling it.

In my post before I did not see this as being deceiving but after reading his thoughts, it makes me realize I missed this one.

This is basically a strange play that I have never seen and probably will never see, but it is nice to see that a guy like Evans would at least give it some thought even though he's never going to see the play in person.

Thanks
David

I accept Evans interp and eagerly await to see it in the new JEA that was mentioned last year as a possibility. Dave apparently decided to go get some bait.

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

Apparently some umpires have difficulty understanding what is and what is not a mechanically legal act of deception.

It's been quoted a couple of times, but I'll quote it again, straight from the 8.05 Penalty case notes:

<font color=navy>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.</font>

It's judgment, pure and simple. But when you see a pitcher employing nonstandard mechanics to simulate a motion that is obviously associated with the pitching motion, and your experience and judgment tell you that he is doing that with clear intent to incite the runner into believing he has begun a motion to pitch, then rather than just tell yourself "gee, that's ugly, but ugly ain't a balk," you now know that the spirit and intent of the balk rule is to balk that move and nip that **** in the bud, pronto.

You'll be surprised how un-Calvinball-like the game will be when you enforce this.

Re: after reading
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Quote:

So I agree with Evans that if I were to see this move I would call it a balk, but I would have to be convinced that the runner was deceived before calling it.

You should not wait to judge whether or not the runner was deceived by the pitcher's motion. The <b>effectiveness</b> of the move is not the salient point; rather, the <b>intent</b> 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.

Before I start, let me say that the following is not intended in any way to be condesceding or belittling. I just want to explain this.

If you read Mr. Evan's explanation, he says a couple of things which tell you exactly what you need to know. In the first sentence, he says the pitcher is required to step backward off the rubber, with the word backward highlighted. In the next sentence, he implies that the step in question was not mechanically legal. Two sentences later, he states, "This is one in which you explain that the pitcher failed to legally disengage. Instead of stepping backward off the rubber, as required..."

So if everyone here read the same explanation I have, why is there any doubt that to legally disengage the rubber, the pitcher must step backward, not up? (and yes you have to move upward to clear the rubber)

Mr. Evan's underlined and emphasized backward and states that the pitcher is required to step backward off.

The move in question, lifting the leg up as high as it can go, is a balk because it is an illegal disengagement from the rubber and is intented to deceive the runner.