Balk ends NCAA game

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by GarthB

At what point are you willing to work as instructed? At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors? At what point are you above the rules?

Ignoring this rule puts penalizes the team who did not violate the rules. How can that be appropriate?

I do work as instructed and apparently we were instructed differently.

As I stated and it seems like you and others do not subscribe to the theory let the players play.

Let's test your memory.

Don't know if you are a basketball fan but I am. The only time the NY Knicks beat the Chicago Bulls in a series was when Michael Jordan did not play and it took a call from "Hugh Hollins" to do it. To this day, that call is classified as one of the worst calls ever made in playoff History.

Why Because most Referees allow the players to play. This is the way is has been since the beginning of time.

If you would balk F1 on this play then it stands to reason you do not agree with the "Neighborhood Play" or the "Phantom tag"

At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors?

Superiors! You talk as though these so called "superiors" are paying my mortgage. Well they are not.

At what point are you above the rules?

Ok Garth let's take a look at the uniform rules. Are you going to be that picky about uniforms. What about F1 delaying the game? Are you going to call the 20 second rule?

There are rules and then there are rules, and my gut tells me that even you would not have called a balk on this play.

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Your gut would be wrong. Like Hensley, I concentrate on pitchers and call balks as they occur. I don't stop to consider what inning, the score or position of runners.

Let's make this easier. Dave has posted this elsewhere.

If the pitcher, in contact with the rubber, had dropped the ball, would you have called that? If so, what's the difference except it being more visible to the public?

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeteBooth
Originally posted by GarthB

At what point are you willing to work as instructed? At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors? At what point are you above the rules?

Ignoring this rule penalizes the team who did not violate the rules. How can that be appropriate?

I do work as instructed and apparently we were instructed differently.

Dave Yeast issued bulletins instructing umpires to call that balk regardless of game situation. How were you instructed differently at the NCAA level?

As I stated and it seems like you and others do not subscribe to the theory let the players play.

The umpire let the players play. One of those players violated the balk rule. The game was not decided by the umpire, it was decided by the players.

Let's test your memory.

Don't know if you are a basketball fan but I am. The only time the NY Knicks beat the Chicago Bulls in a series was when Michael Jordan did not play and it took a call from "Hugh Hollins" to do it. To this day, that call is classified as one of the worst calls ever made in playoff History.

Why Because most Referees allow the players to play. This is the way is has been since the beginning of time.

If you would balk F1 on this play then it stands to reason you do not agree with the "Neighborhood Play" or the "Phantom tag"

Your reason is lacking. Allowing the neighborhood play for safety considerations is a far cry from ignoring a pitcher violating a rule.

At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors?

Superiors! You talk as though these so called "superiors" are paying my mortgage. Well they are not.

No, but they have the position and authority to dictiate how those who work for them perform their job.

At what point are you above the rules?

Ok Garth let's take a look at the uniform rules. Are you going to be that picky about uniforms. What about F1 delaying the game? Are you going to call the 20 second rule?

At the college level I would enforce the uniform rule as Dave Yeast and his committee has directed.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by PeteBooth
Let's test your memory.

Don't know if you are a basketball fan but I am. The only time the NY Knicks beat the Chicago Bulls in a series was when Michael Jordan did not play and it took a call from "Hugh Hollins" to do it. To this day, that call is classified as one of the worst calls ever made in playoff History.

Why Because most Referees allow the players to play. This is the way is has been since the beginning of time.

[/B]

Well, I'm a basketball referee and you've got the wrong take on this one. That NBA call was a "bad" call because there was NO foul on the play, not because Hollins made the "right" call at the "wrong" time. The contact on that play occured after the ball was released on the shot, and therefore no real foul was actually committed. That was what made it the wrong call. The only way that you could relate that call to the balk call being discussed was if the balk call was a phantom call also. Iow, that NBA call had absolutely nothing to do with letting the players play. If the contact on the foul call by Hollins hadda legitimately affected the shot, it woulda been a good call and you woulda never heard any complaints about it.

Apples and oranges.

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Well, I'm a basketball referee and you've got the wrong take on this one. That NBA call was a "bad" call because there was NO foul on the play, not because Hollins made the "right" call at the "wrong" time. The contact on that play occured after the ball was released on the shot, and therefore no real foul was actually committed. That was what made it the wrong call. The only way that you could relate that call to the balk call being discussed was if the balk call was a phantom call also. Iow, that NBA call had absolutely nothing to do with letting the players play. If the contact on the foul call by Hollins hadda legitimately affected the shot, it woulda been a good call and you woulda never heard any complaints about it.

Apples and oranges. [/B]

And that one call is what kept Pippen in Jordans shadow, no doubt in my mind if the Bulls get through that game they win the title without Jordan and Pippen finally steps out from under Jordans shadow.

[Dave Hensley]

The analogy to other sports simply doesn't work, anyway. How about the NHL champioship a few years ago when the Dallas Stars won on an obvious violation, a goal scored by a player who was obviously, confirmed via replay, in the crease.

I didn't hear anybody who was rooting for the opposing team supporting the officials decision to "let the players play." In fact, they made no such decision; they simply missed the call.

[mcrowder]

What amazes me about all of the people thinking this was a bad call is that they all say, "Let the players play." But they DID. And one of those pitchers violated a rule. NOT calling that balk would have been inserting themselves into the game and not letting the players play. (And I guarantee the umpire who missed it would not be working NCAA ball in June anymore.)

[David B]

Originally posted by mcrowder
What amazes me about all of the people thinking this was a bad call is that they all say, "Let the players play." But they DID. And one of those pitchers violated a rule. NOT calling that balk would have been inserting themselves into the game and not letting the players play. (And I guarantee the umpire who missed it would not be working NCAA ball in June anymore.)

I was watching the game and they showed the replay several times in slo mo of course and the pitcher did balk.

The problem though that I had with the play was that
TV showed all of the four pitches and he balked on two of the other pitches and it was not called.

Why did he wait for ball four to make the call?

But U2 was not even watching the pitcher, he was the umpire in chief and was looking at first base when the balk was called (as shown on replay) so maybe U3 wasn't looking either on the other two pitches or something.

I don't disagree with the call, just the timing of the call. If you're going to make a picky balk call then call all of them.

But, Arizona state ended up winning the series, so all is well in Sun Devil land.

Thanks
David

[Dave Hensley]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Why did he wait for ball four to make the call?

What does it matter? It would have been the same result if he had called the balk on Ball 1, Ball 2, or Ball 3.

[Bfair]

So here we are in the NFL with 2 seconds left in the game and the offense trailing by 5 with the ball at the 15 yard line. Wideout is split wide left with the defender ready to block his release off the line.

The snap occurs, the defensive line stunts, and the offense makes a quick trap off the right guard with the runner breaking toward the right sideline and scoring to win the game.

But wait, there's a flag on the play !!!!!!!!
It seems there was a holding call made against the wideout over on near the left sideline !!!!!

Good call by rules?????????????
Good call by a veteran official?????????
You make the call............

********

It seems we have a similar incident here..........

While Yeast may have emphasized the need for officials to assure pitchers come to a complete stop, I doubt if he wanted his directive to mean situations where no advantage could be gained (such as perhaps a pitcher throwing from the set position with no runners on base). But will Yeast support this call? Of course he will. The official was carrying out HIS emphasis---despite applying it poorly for the situation at hand. Still, I'd strongly suspect that Yeast cringed when he saw the call.............as likely did most veteran officials. That's probably why only 1 of 4 officials made the call and not because of their angle on the play. Let's face it, PU and U2 also have excellent angles on this action and would have easily seen it.

There are exceptions to the rules---unwritten exceptions that we at times apply. Better officials know WHEN to apply those exceptions, know how to take the heat if necessary, and know how to explain their way out of 'em. Those exceptions typically apply toward technical infractions where neither advantage was gained nor attempted to be gained. The other factor includes how obvious the infraction is. Does this fit the category?

While I did not see this play to be able to comment on how OBVIOUS the infraction was (the problem faced with the dropped ball from the rubber), this is still an infraction of judgement. It should not have been called unless the official felt that R3 might have been contemplating a steal of home. It's likely no advantage was gained or attemted to be gained.

The official let the technicality of the rules become greater than the game itself.

***********

The George Brett incident is one where McClelland was forced to check the bat after the infraction of having the pine tar too far up the handle BECAUSE it was brought to his attention. The situation was at that point made obvious such that he felt forced to make the technical decision per the rules. He ruled accordingly and declared Brett out for use of an illegal bat. A call he didn't want to make, but one he felt forced to make by the rules.

KC protested the game. The outcome of the protest was ruled in favor of KC despite obviously not being in accordance with the technical rule. The ruling (I believe made by Lee McPhail) cited that although the umpire ruled in accordance with the written rule, he did not rule within the spirit and intent of the rule.

*********

AS umpires we need to consider spirit and intent of the rules---especially when we can use "judgment" as an easy explanation vs. enforcing a technical rule (something McClelland would have had difficulty doing).

I'm amazed at some of the veteran officials who have been criticizing Pete.
I'd speculate that none of these officials (whose posts I've read in the past) would have supported this same call 2 years ago when I was last on the boards. Not due to lack of gonads, but moreso due to being better umpires. So, would the Yeast edict of emphasis be the difference today? While it may be for those veterans posting here, I suspect it was for only 25% of the umpiring crew of the game being discussed. Still, I suspect some of those posting in support of the call made would still not make that call today. I'd put 'em in the 75% that didn't make the call on the field. Explaining a call like this and making a call like this are different animals.

********

IMO, don't let the technicalities of the rules become greater than the game itself.
Understand advantage, disadvantage, and intentional attempts to take advantage illegally.

I guess it's obvious I would not have made that call......
Perhaps for that reason among many more is why I'm sitting at home talking about it rather than being on that field deciding it. The official earned his way there, but I doubt if this will be seen as a feather in his cap. Even the best officials can, at times, make poor calls.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
While Yeast may have emphasized the need for officials to assure pitchers come to a complete stop, I doubt if he wanted his directive to mean situations where no advantage could be gained (such as perhaps a pitcher throwing from the set position with no runners on base). But will Yeast support this call? Of course he will. The official was carrying out HIS emphasis---despite applying it poorly for the situation at hand. Still, I'd strongly suspect that Yeast cringed when he saw the call.............

Steve --

You're projecting your feelings about the call onto Yeast -- there's no way you can say how he might have reacted unless you were there (or talked with someone who was).

What we do know is that Yeast publically praised a similar call (and, in my judgment, a play that was much closer to being "legal") made earlier in the season. He did so on one of he periodic videos posted on the NCAA website. There was no reason for him to use the clip on the web-site if he didn't believe it and want it enforced.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by bob jenkins


Steve --

You're projecting your feelings about the call onto Yeast -- there's no way you can say how he might have reacted unless you were there (or talked with someone who was).

What we do know is that Yeast publically praised a similar call (and, in my judgment, a play that was much closer to being "legal") made earlier in the season. He did so on one of he periodic videos posted on the NCAA website. There was no reason for him to use the clip on the web-site if he didn't believe it and want it enforced.

I'm projecting my speculation about how the call may have been viewed.
Perhaps I'm wrong......it wouldn't be a first.

I'm interested in learning more about the call he earlier praised and used on the website.

Was it one merely highlighting pitcher movement, or was it also in a situation where no advantage could be gained?


Freix

[GarthB]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bfair
[B]So here we are in the NFL with 2 seconds left in the game and the offense trailing by 5 with the ball at the 15 yard line. Wideout is split wide left with the defender ready to block his release off the line.

etc. etc. etc.*

I agree with Dave, analogies from other sports don't fly. Try this site: http://www.officialforum.com/forum/4



While Yeast may have emphasized the need for officials to assure pitchers come to a complete stop, I doubt if he wanted his directive to mean situations where no advantage could be gained (such as perhaps a pitcher throwing from the set position with no runners on base). But will Yeast support this call? Of course he will. The official was carrying out HIS emphasis---despite applying it poorly for the situation at hand. Still, I'd strongly suspect that Yeast cringed when he saw the call.............as likely did most veteran officials.

Have you been working for Yeast lately? Have you kept up with his video bulletins?


There are exceptions to the rules---unwritten exceptions that we at times apply. Better officials know WHEN to apply those exceptions, know how to take the heat if necessary, and know how to explain their way out of 'em. Those exceptions typically apply toward technical infractions where neither advantage was gained nor attempted to be gained. The other factor includes how obvious the infraction is. Does this fit the category?

While I did not see this play to be able to comment on how OBVIOUS the infraction was (the problem faced with the dropped ball from the rubber), this is still an infraction of judgement. It should not have been called unless the official felt that R3 might have been contemplating a steal of home. It's likely no advantage was gained or attemted to be gained.

The official let the technicality of the rules become greater than the game itself.

How about the example I stole from Hensely? Bottom of the ninth score tied, R3. Pitcher in contact with the runner drops the ball. Do you ignore that?


AS umpires we need to consider spirit and intent of the rules---especially when we can use "judgment" as an easy explanation vs. enforcing a technical rule (something McClelland would have had difficulty doing).

Following that logic there would be no balks except deceptive balks; no mechanical balks, no penal balks. Despite the announcer/coach mentality that seem to sweeping the boards, deception is not the only reason balks are called, and impact on a game appears no where in the NCAA rulebook. I thought we were supposed to let the players decide the game. What you are suggesting is to allow the umpire decide the game by ignoring the balk. Judicial activism at its best. I submit that by enforcing the rule the umpire kept himself from deciding the game.

I'm amazed at some of the veteran officials who have been criticizing Pete.
I'd speculate that none of these officials (whose posts I've read in the past) would have supported this same call 2 years ago when I was last on the boards. Not due to lack of gonads, but moreso due to being better umpires. So, would the Yeast edict of emphasis be the difference today? While it may be for those veterans posting here, I suspect it was for only 25% of the umpiring crew of the game being discussed. Still, I suspect some of those posting in support of the call made would still not make that call today.

Maybe, maybe not. The game of baseball and rules interps are not static. You were one arguing that point with Carl years ago. As an example, according to Jim Evans the running lane interp has changed at least three times.

I look forward to you coming back in another two years.

[Edited by GarthB on Jun 13th, 2005 at 01:57 PM]

[LDUB]

Originally posted by Bfair
I'm interested in learning more about the call he earlier praised and used on the website.

Was it one merely highlighting pitcher movement, or was it also in a situation where no advantage could be gained?


Freix

There was R1 and the balk was called by U3 who was in C. The batter hit the ball, which was caught by F7.

[mcrowder]

bfair - your football example doesn't apply at all. That call is not likely made at any point during the game, so not making it at the end of the game would be normal.

Change it so that it's the defender hitting the WR more than 5 yards downfield on a pass - a call that is made all game. Do you want them to NOT make that call on the final play of the game? I do, and I hope everyone does. Timing should not matter - if you're going to make the call in the 1st inning, make it in the last.