The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 02, 2005, 11:04am
Rich's Avatar
Get away from me, Steve.
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 15,687
Unless 3appleshigh closed the balk thread, I don't see the point. What's wrong with leaving it open?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 02, 2005, 11:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser

Unless 3appleshigh closed the balk thread, I don't see the point. What's wrong with leaving it open?

Rich I agree and IMO and even though I am joining late, to me this type of thread falls under the category of umpire consistency and the real answer lies in the association one belongs to.

In addition, we get on coaches sometimes but this type of thread could drive a coach crazy.

Example: Assume a Double Header between the same 2 teams and to get my point across I will also assume that there will be one crew for the first game and another crew for the second game.

You and I have the front end of the Double Dip, F1 does what he did as proposed in the original thread and both you and I balk him.

Next game there is a different crew doing the game. F1 does the SAME EXACT thing only this time nothing is called.

IMO that's the REAL issue with these types of threads where there doesn't seem to be a difinitive answer. My advice would be to bring these kinds of issues up at the interpretation meetings in one's association so that there can be some consistency from game to game.

Pete Booth
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 02, 2005, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 17,241
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Unless 3appleshigh closed the balk thread, I don't see the point. What's wrong with leaving it open?
I closed it. There was nothing new being added. We were just going around in circles flogging the same dead horse while not turning the page. Pretty soon, we were going to have to join the repeater's support group -- on-and-on anon.

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 02, 2005, 11:51am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Unless 3appleshigh closed the balk thread, I don't see the point. What's wrong with leaving it open?
Your right Rich,

And so we can continue here. After reading the entire thread the point Evans made was,

"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."

Well, I see it as a HTBT to "BELIEVE" it move, otherwise, there was NO balk. ANYONE, that thinks picking the pivot foot up in the manner discussed, is the begining or simulation of a pitch, should'nt be playing the game to begin with, because they are just too dam stupid.

Why am I not allowed to stretch an interpretation? I just read almost 9 pages of the same.

I'm amused!!!

Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 02, 2005, 12:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

I never quite got around to responding to the thread which is now "locked". When I first read it, my reaction was: "Kind of sounds like a balk, but I'm really not sure."

So, I tried it myself at home. What I learned is that in lifting my pivot foot "more than a little" prior to stepping it behind the rubber, my front shoulder (and entire body) leaned in the direction of home plate. It's quite noticeable. You cannot (well, I cannot) maintain your balance when doing this (i.e. lifting the pivot foot high) without making a noticeable body movement in the direction opposite your pivot foot. Try it yourself and see if you don't agree.

To me, this is another valid reason (not that one is needed after the Jim Evans post in the locked thread) for calling a balk on this. I was surprised that nobody brought this up in the previous thread. JMO.

Pete Booth is also correct that having umpires make opposite rulings under the identical set of circumstances does drive coaches crazy.

JM
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Jun 02, 2005, 08:24pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 301
i know i don't need too, but

I did not close the thread, and after being a flip flopper, I'm glad to see that I was both right and wrong, but kind of right. The second time I saw the move, was more to see if the runners would move on a play where they would all be running, the other was a definante and deliberate move todecieve the runner. Also the movement the second time took 1/3 the time frame, nor was the leg lifted quite as high. I now know a little better what to look for, and I hope I never have to see this again.

I must say I was worried about making the post and getting jumped on, and am glad to say I wasn't. I'm glad I sparked discussion and I'm glad to have gained some knowledge.

Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 12:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
jicecone,
Saying you have to see "the move" is a cop out. "The move" - disengaging the rubber by lifting the leg, "straight up, knee to chest almost" is clear to everyone. There is no debate that I am aware of about what the move is.

I don't believe anyone said that making "the move" was "the begining or simulation of a pitch".

What was said is that "the motion" is associated with a pitch (or step to a base).

Motion is the keyword in the rule. Is the motion the same no matter which leg you do it with? Answer - Yes. That is all that is required to make the move illegal.

Is there any other legitimate reason to bring the leg and knee up that high, except to pitch or throw to a base? Answer - No.

Is "the move" a backward off motion? Answer - No. "The move" is clearly up/off first without moving backward. The term "backward off" is written together in the rule. There are no joining words like "and" (backward and off) or "then" (backward then off).

Is there a reason to allow two separate and distinct movements when the two motions are written together without any joining words? Answer - No.

Mr. Evan's reasoning and interpretation support the arguments made above.

Before you start referring to people as stupid, I would look in the mirror first.


Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Unless 3appleshigh closed the balk thread, I don't see the point. What's wrong with leaving it open?
Your right Rich,

And so we can continue here. After reading the entire thread the point Evans made was,

"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."

Well, I see it as a HTBT to "BELIEVE" it move, otherwise, there was NO balk. ANYONE, that thinks picking the pivot foot up in the manner discussed, is the begining or simulation of a pitch, should'nt be playing the game to begin with, because they are just too dam stupid.

Why am I not allowed to stretch an interpretation? I just read almost 9 pages of the same.

I'm amused!!!

__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 12:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 555
Re: i know i don't need too, but

I am glad you made the post and I am glad you learned from it. I learned from it too.

It also sounds like the second move was accomplished by keeping the knee below the waist. If that's the case, I agree with your decision to not balk it. For whatever that's worth...

Quote:
Originally posted by 3appleshigh
I did not close the thread, and after being a flip flopper, I'm glad to see that I was both right and wrong, but kind of right. The second time I saw the move, was more to see if the runners would move on a play where they would all be running, the other was a definante and deliberate move todecieve the runner. Also the movement the second time took 1/3 the time frame, nor was the leg lifted quite as high. I now know a little better what to look for, and I hope I never have to see this again.

I must say I was worried about making the post and getting jumped on, and am glad to say I wasn't. I'm glad I sparked discussion and I'm glad to have gained some knowledge.

__________________
Well I am certainly wiser than this man. It is only too likely that neither of us has any knowledge to boast of; but he thinks that he knows something which he does not know, whereas I am quite conscious of my ignorance. At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know. ~Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 03:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaliix
jicecone,
Saying you have to see "the move" is a cop out. "The move" - disengaging the rubber by lifting the leg, "straight up, knee to chest almost" is clear to everyone. There is no debate that I am aware of about what the move is.

I don't believe anyone said that making "the move" was "the begining or simulation of a pitch".

What was said is that "the motion" is associated with a pitch (or step to a base).

Motion is the keyword in the rule. Is the motion the same no matter which leg you do it with? Answer - Yes. That is all that is required to make the move illegal.

Is there any other legitimate reason to bring the leg and knee up that high, except to pitch or throw to a base? Answer - No.

Is "the move" a backward off motion? Answer - No. "The move" is clearly up/off first without moving backward. The term "backward off" is written together in the rule. There are no joining words like "and" (backward and off) or "then" (backward then off).

Is there a reason to allow two separate and distinct movements when the two motions are written together without any joining words? Answer - No.

Mr. Evan's reasoning and interpretation support the arguments made above.

Before you start referring to people as stupid, I would look in the mirror first.


Quote:
Originally posted by jicecone
Quote:
Originally posted by Rich Fronheiser
Unless 3appleshigh closed the balk thread, I don't see the point. What's wrong with leaving it open?
Your right Rich,

And so we can continue here. After reading the entire thread the point Evans made was,

"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."

Well, I see it as a HTBT to "BELIEVE" it move, otherwise, there was NO balk. ANYONE, that thinks picking the pivot foot up in the manner discussed, is the begining or simulation of a pitch, should'nt be playing the game to begin with, because they are just too dam stupid.

Why am I not allowed to stretch an interpretation? I just read almost 9 pages of the same.

I'm amused!!!

You really are hung up about this, and to boot you can claim the Jim Evans, "Metal Of Honor" for interpretating above and beyond the call of duty. Most, here have accepted
the fact that this could or could not be called, (or even should or should not be called) during a contest, except you.

I said I HTBT (had to be there) to believe it, because Mr Evans states that as being a requirement for calling a penalty, (Believing what the pitchers intent was).

Oh Great Interpretor, forgive me, I did speak in error though, I should have said, ANYONE, that thinks picking the pivot foot up in the manner discussed, is motion associated with a pitch, should'nt be playing the game to begin with, because they are just too dam stupid.

Now, as far as the rest of your opinions on backward, upward, downward, inward, outward or whatever, make sure to include it in your first documented authoratative book. Mabey, just mabey, I will start to believe it. But I doubt it.

Have a good day!

Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 03:30pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 301
just curious

what is mabey? Maybe you can add it to the work describing up, down, in, out and all the rest.

I would like to say the original question included the judgement of intent so that would not have to be debated, I said that the only reason the pitcher did what he did was to decieve the runner. Now then give the entire situation described, and the now infamous Jim Evans response, We can all agree that in this situation, it should be called a balk. OK NOW??
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 03:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Well,

I was hoping that Bob had closed the original thread simply because it was the most boring thread I had ever tried to read (note: tried, I gave up).

Maybe this one will be locked soon.


Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 04:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 508
I gotta chime in here

Original post said that F1 lifted pivot foot high in the air.


Lets look at this, if I am R1 and see this, which I should, as well as FBC. My *** is back to the bag, he is stepping off. OR balking IF the ump decides he is simulating a pitch.Hensley an company , IMHO , have decided to iterpret this as a simulated pitch, could very well be.That is judgement, very well good call, BUT, original post was looking at a simle/ slow pivot foot lift, he may go backwards, lets wait and see.2 things are gonna happen, #1...ump figures a legal disengagement, or he rules a simulation of pitch. IT IS ALL JUDGEMENT!!!!!!

Slow, deliberate/ and obvious....nuttin

err on the side of judgement.....yours
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 06:31pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,577
lock it!!! pleeease! forduhluvvagawd, lock it!

Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 06:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 768
1. There is nothing "infamous" about Jim Evans' response to the play in question.

2. The play in question included, as a given, that the pitcher had been judged to have performed the move in an effort to deceive the runner.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 04, 2005, 07:02pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Good night Chet,

Good Night David.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:59pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1