Anybody see this? Oh boy, I hope that 3rd base umpire knows he's 150% right on that one.

ASU and CSF are tied 2-2, no outs, bottom 9. CSF has 1st and 3rd, and the ASU pitcher is intentionally walking the batter. On the 4th pitch, the 3rd base umpire calls a balk, scoring the winning run.

I didn't see it in live action, and they showed the replay about a dozen times, trying to figure it out. I still couldn't find it. As soon as the pitcher released the ball, he scratched his nose, so I thought perhaps the ump was calling him for going to his mouth on the mound. Later, the ASU coach was interviewed on SportsCenter and was told that the pitcher did not come to a clear and discernable stop.

It sure looked like he stopped to me. Some folks are saying that the call shouldn't have been made because of the situation in the game. Well, I do disagree with that to a degree. If the pitcher just rolls right into the pitch, you gotta call the balk. But in this situation, it appears that he did in fact stop. Anybody else see this?

By the way, I just read a news report on the game on ESPN, which says the home plate umpire called the balk. However, it was in fact the 3rd base umpire.

comments by Yeast on ESPN
 

The pitcher failed to come to a complete stop. It was absolutely 100% the correct call...

If you bounce, you balk. He bounced, so he balked.

It certainly isn't the first time a pitcher has "gotten lazy" with his mechanics while delivering an IBB. It is, however, the first time an NCAA umpire has busted him on it for the game-ending play of a CWS Super Regional game.

Re: comments by Yeast on ESPN
 

This call takes gonads, but as a lower level NCAA umpire (2 D-III conferences), I appreciate what the big boys are doing WRT balks and the strike zone (moving it up). It makes my job a heckuva lot easier as all I have to say is -- this is how the NCAA wants it.

I've noticed though that the MLB "complete stop" is starting to take a hit. Lots of bouncing and sliding into the pitches from the set position in recent games.

<i> Originally posted by TriggerMN </i>

<b> Anybody see this? Oh boy, I hope that 3rd base umpire knows he's 150% right on that one.

ASU and CSF are tied 2-2, no outs, bottom 9. CSF has 1st and 3rd, and the ASU pitcher is intentionally walking the batter. On the 4th pitch, the 3rd base umpire calls a balk, scoring the winning run. It sure looked like he stopped to me. </b>

Whether he stopped or didn't is irrelevant. It was an IW. No deception no nothing. R1 was going to get second base anyway because of the IW.

It's not like we had R1 only and R1 was a Rickey Henderson type runner and F1 was trying to gain an unfair advantage by not adhereing to the rule. There was R1/R3 and an intentional base on balls. Runners going no-where.

Was it the correct call?

Technically speaking - yes but in the spirit of the game IMO a horrible call. Why didn't the other umpires call it?
Why! because they wanted the players to decide.

It's like an NBA / Hockey game where the officials in that particular sport allow the players to decide. Unless it's a BLATANT foul, they allow more contact towards the end of the game.

Papa C speaks of something similar in his book 51 ways to ruin a baseball game. The aforementioned could be number 52.

There's a reason the rule-makers put in the wording for a "decernable stop" and it had nothing to do with F1 giving a base on balls.

I would bet a "dollar to a donut" no PRO umpire worth his weight in gold would call a Balk on Roger Clemens in game 7 of the world series for not coming to a stop when intentionally walking a batter.

In Summary IMO a Horrible call and my gut tells me that perhaps the NCAA will adopt the FED ruling on Intentional walks in the future. Simply call TIME and send B1 to first.

They changed the obstruction rule when the Texas first base-men constantly blocked the base before actual possession of the ball. The following year the rule change.

Now we have a balk called on an intentional base on balls. Perhaps the rule will change to the FED ruling as early as next season.

IMO it had nothing to do with Gonads, but some umpire with a huge ego wanting to make the BIG call.

Pete Booth

Do you umpire NCAA baseball? Do you know how NCAA umpires are evaluated? Have you been to a recent NCAA clinic? The answer is obviously no because if you had you'd know that there is another possible answer.

These umpires are being evaluated by videotape for their compliance with NCAA rules. It's entirely likely that the umpire made the call because he wants to go back next year. Now that coaches no longer have veto power and umpire supervisors are supreme, his future is in the hands of the umpire supervisor. I'll bet he made that call cause he didn't want to explain to his supervisor the pyscho babble that you put in your post. Your psycho babble is yesterday's umpiring philosophy and umpires with that philosophy are fast becoming ex-NCAA umpires.

Like Bob said, you have no clue how NCAA umpires are scrutinized. Just this season, Yeast on a bulletin made it quite clear this was to be called. At all times.

The pitcher could have done it correctly and this would be non-issue. In fact, he could have pitched from the windup, if they are going to walk the batter with a runner on 1B anyway.

I'm sorry to see you post this Pete. I've not seen you be so wrong very often. It's obvious you are not calling NCAA ball. If you were, you'd know that not only is this a balk, but your customers and your boss have been asking for this call to be made. This had nothing to do with ego. This had everything to do with a lazy pitcher.

This is like calling a hand check 30 feet from the basket, time running out, tie game, in the bonus, sending the guy to the line with one second left.

Absolutely terrible. No way around it.

OK, whatever.

Tell me why the pitcher couldn't be bothered to come to a complete stop in a situation so mundane as an intentional walk. Can't, can you?

Why can't the catcher be bothered to actually crouch? Was the home plate umpire set in his normal postition call the pitch? Were the runners leading off aggressively?

I guess everyone was lazy here. In this sitch, as you know, the mindset is to get the pitches over with so we can get to playing real baseball again.

If this is the kind of umpiring the NCAA and Yeast want to hang their hats on good luck with that. IMO, they ruined a great ending to a great game.

Again, it was the pitcher who erred. It's amazing the number of people who want to fry an umpire doing his job while giving a free ride to the pitcher who was NOT doing his.

If the NCAA basketball supervisor has stressed that he wants the hand check called in that circumstance,then you'd damnwell better be calling it. As long as it's been called consistently throughout the game,there's no real problem.

Also, a hand check with a second left might also generate enough contact to put the dribbler off-balance enough that he is now unable to set his feet quickly enough to get that last second shot off. You just can't make a general statement that will cover all situations. If that hand check stopped the dribbler from getting a last second shot off- in the calling official's opinion, he should be calling a foul on that play.

Btw, what did the umpire that made the call and his on-site supervisor have to say about the call when you discussed it with them? You did discuss the call with them to get their side before you subsequently publically dumped on them, didn't you?

[Edited by Jurassic Referee on Jun 12th, 2005 at 06:37 AM]

If that's the case, then they should allow the defense to wave the batter to first base like the FED.

Well,
 

Pete:

I am just disappointed that you have joined the "announcer" mentality.

Dave Yeast has made it VERY clear that he wants things called as they ARE -- not how some people think they "should be" --

Again, I am disapointed, but not angry.

<font color=blue>"Contrary to what some announcers and others may think I don't believe there is a time to pass on a rule enforcement because we are late in a big game in a big situation. It is precisely at these times that coaches and players may try to break the rules to try to get an advantage. This is great call in a big game."</font>

Sound like something Yeast may have said while defending the umpire's call in the CSF/ASU game the other night? Well, think again, folks. That's a Dave Yeast quote, all right, but it is from the last NCAA video-bulletin this year, in which a no-stop balk was called and Yeast made these editorial comments about it.

Apparently the CSF/ASU umpire saw that bulletin, and took it to heart. Bully for him.

Sounds to me like Mr. Yeast probably to this umpire out for a beer afterward to give him a public ataboy for calling it the way it was supposed to be called. To bad for the losing team, I bet their pitchers come to a descernable stop from now on.

Re: Well,
 

<i>Originally posted by Tim C </i>

<b> Pete:

I am just disappointed that you have joined the "announcer" mentality.

Dave Yeast has made it VERY clear that he wants things called as they ARE -- not how some people think they "should be" --

Again, I am disapointed, but not angry. </b>


Tee I do not think that I have joined the "announcer" mentality.

As I mentioned in my original thread, Papa C talks about a similar play meaning if an umpire were to call a balk in that situation he is ruining the game.

In Papa C's book he referenced F1 in the wind-up, coach yelling from dugout "Hey Buba go to the set". Runners going no-where and F1 disengages illegally.

If the NCAA wanted this called all year how come it wasn't. What, wait until game 900th and then start calling it.

If you could get "into the minds of the offensive team" I bet the coach was just as surprised as anybody.

Also, if it was indeed an NCAA Pre-requisite how come all the blues at approx the same time were not calling a balk. The PU has perhaps the best view.

It was a simple intentional walk.

To be frank I am disappointed in the so called "experts" who agreed with this call.

As I mentioned, in the "other" sports "more lee-way" is given towards the end of the game, but baseball umpires are different.

Bottom line I personnally would not have called a balk.

Pete Booth

It is not wrong to make that balk call. But considering that there was no advantage lost or gained by the pitcher maybe not completely stopping on an intentional walk, the more right thing to do is to let the players decide the game. IMHO

How do you know there was no advantage gained? Maybe that pitcher has a real problem throwing wild pitches unless he's allowed to blow through the stop requirement.

The point is, the pitching rules are to be followed on every pitch. Would you have NOT called a balk had the pitcher dropped the ball while on the rubber? After all, there's no advantage gained in that balk.

It was the pitcher, not the umpire, who screwed up. Not calling the balk creates a disadvantage "not intended by the rules" for the opposing team.

The players did decide the game.

If the pitcher decides to violate the pitching regulations he is subject to the penalties.

The pitcher made a mistake and the run scored. It is no different than if he threw the pitch over the catcher's head and R3 came home.

If you don't make that call the players are not deciding the game, you are.

Re: Re: Well,
 

I am disappointed that you put more credence in Carl's book than in people who actually called NCAA games this season.

It is my opinion that unless it's so obvious that you can't help but call it, in that situation, with the pitcher issuing an intentional walk, you don't pick boogers.

The person who started the thread didn't see it and couldn't tell what it was after a multitude of replays. Apparently only one umpire saw it. If it was that obvious, I would think more than one guy would have called it.

Like I said, it's not wrong to call it, but in my opinion, and only my opinion, if it's not obvious, in a situation where no one expects that kind of call, with the game on the line, I don't think you make that call. IMHO, your mileage may vary...

And,
 

I do not care what w_sohl says . . . I do, however, care what Pete says.

I am still disappointed.

As Evans says, "if you don't want to call by the rules then you should be a coach."

Tee

Re: And,
 

Curious where this came from Tee? I thought I was agreeing with you.

Well,
 

It wasn't about your post . . . it was my disappointment with Pete (which continues).

Sorry I took you into this.

Re: Well,
 

No worries, just caught me off guard.

Re: Re: Well,
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeteBooth <b>

If the NCAA wanted this called all year how come it wasn't. What, wait until game 900th and then start calling it.</b>

This was covered in bulletins sent to NCAA umpires during the season. It did NOT come our "until the 900th game."

<b>Also, if it was indeed an NCAA Pre-requisite how come all the blues at approx the same time were not calling a balk. The PU has perhaps the best view.</b>

Let's see. A balk for not stopping on RHP in set position. Nope, third base ump has the best look at that one.

<b>It was a simple intentional walk.</b>

And?

<b>To be frank I am disappointed in the so called "experts" who agreed with this call.</b>

You are more disappointed with those who understand that we are subject to the directive of superiors and the rules of the game. Unfortunate.

<b>Bottom line I personnally would not have called a balk.</b>

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?

Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

<i> Originally posted by GarthB </i>

<b> 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? </b>

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"

<b> At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors? </b>

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

<b> At what point are you above the rules? </b>

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

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?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Well,
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PeteBooth
<i> Originally posted by GarthB </i>

<i> 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>

<b>I do work as instructed and apparently we were instructed differently.</b>

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

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

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.

<b>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"</b>

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

<i> At what point are you authorized to ignore your superiors? </i>

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

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

<i> At what point are you above the rules? </i>

<b>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?</b>

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

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 <b>NO</b> foul on the play, not because Hollins made the "right" call at the "wrong" time. The contact on that play occured <b>after</b> the ball was released on the shot, and therefore <b>no</b> 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.

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.

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.

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.)

The problem I had with the call
 

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

Re: The problem I had with the call
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Quote:

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.

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

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

[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.*</b>

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



<b>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.</b>

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


<b>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.</b>

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?


<b>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). </b>

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.

<b>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. </b>

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. :D

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

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

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB
[B]They have medications for that now :)

(just thought this post needed a little humor. I crawl under my rock again.)

Yeast would not need to concern himself with whether a no-stop balk should or shouldn't be called with no runners on base; there is an approved ruling in the NCAA rules that says the pitcher need not come to a complete and discernible stop with no runners on base.

Nope, a similar incident in the NFL would be a false start or an offside on a lineman at the beginning of the play. That's a technical-type foul similar to the balk that was called. It's also a technical-type foul that <b>has</b> to be called in football, no matter when it occurs.

Good call by the rules?--Yup!
Good call by an NFL <i>veterano</i>?--Yup!

Apples and oranges again.

funny
 

First off I agree with the balk.

What is funny to me is that there are people on here

jumping on the band wagon to call it as it is suppose to be

called.

Where as at the start of the season i was called a OOO for

calling a balk, by rule.

Garth B., DG which way should it be?
http://www.officialforum.com/showthr...0&pagenumber=1

Your situation is different. It was a Federation game, and you balked the guy for rolling his glove. Rolling the glove, though illegal, is an accepted practice, and overlooked by some umpires.

That is very different than a no stop balk, after Yeast says to make the call no matter what the situation is.

Ditto

We're not talking about results here!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Hensley

Quote:

Originally posted by David B Quote: 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.

No one is talking about the final result. I'm talking about that if as an official you are going to call a picky technical balk then it should have been called on the first instance.

Why wait for two balks that you don't call and then call it on the third.

I don't know Mr. Yeast, but I would think that he as I cringed when he saw this call.

I read what the umpire in chief said in the paper, and it was a simple rule quote to back his partner.

The look on his face when he saw the balk called made all the difference.

Then U2 the UIC got stuck having to explain it to the coach. What would you expect him to say, he missed the call?

No by rule it was a good call. But as far as the game, it was a poor call in a very very good baseball game.

Thanks
David

Pete:

Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention. As I told you in my email, I would post my opinion.

I've done that. It appears tomorrow on the paid site.

But it's a free article, so anyone can read it.

Two reasons: The "opinion" is about 1800 words. It will read much better in magazine format than here at The Forum.

Second, I just wanted some people to stop by to see what they're missing over there.

Let me know what you think.

Looks like Pete brought in the big gun.

Re: funny
 

I saw the replay. I would not have called a balk.

1800 words?

I saw the replay of the balk and there's no doubt that the pitcher bounced on the pitch. I'll be interested in your take, but I'd rather hear Yeast's -- when he's not talking into a microphone.

Tonight I went to a college summer league game in Madison that ended in the bottom of the ninth inning on a passed ball during an intentional walk. Weren't too many of the 6349 fans left in the park by this time (the game went 3:07), but I'm glad I stayed to see this.

If you've read 51 Ways to Ruin a Game, you, most likely, have seen his take, in fewer words. Get ready to be proven wrong, again.

Proven? Please.

Hmmmm........sounds like there was potential of an advantage to be gained over a possibility of R1 stealing.......

In the game under discussion, there's little chance R3 was stealing home or R1 stealing 1B (especially with the pitch being ball four of an intentional walk which would have forced R1 to 2B).

Sounds like the official in the example used by Yeast understood advantage/disadvantage of the technical rule.


Just a point,

Freix

I believe you are incorrect.
Officials would make that call if it had potential impact within the game.

My same example but the runner breaks toward the left sideline............and the holding infraction at the left sideline IS CALLED.

Good call??????? Absolutely !!!!!!!

The difference----advantage gained in one instance vs. no advantage gained in the other.
The official understands advantage/disadvantage.

The comparison to an offsides penalty is moreso a comparison to the dropped ball off the rubber. When it's obvious it's hard to ignore. There is also advantage to be gained when a player lines up offside.

Just a point,

Freix





[Edited by Bfair on Jun 14th, 2005 at 05:02 AM]

Re: We're not talking about results here!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by David B

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave Hensley Quote: Originally posted by David B Quote: 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. No one is talking about the final result. I'm talking about that if as an official you are going to call a picky technical balk then it should have been called on the first instance. Why wait for two balks that you don't call and then call it on the third. I don't know Mr. Yeast, but I would think that he as I cringed when he saw this call. I read what the umpire in chief said in the paper, and it was a simple rule quote to back his partner. The look on his face when he saw the balk called made all the difference. Then U2 the UIC got stuck having to explain it to the coach. What would you expect him to say, he missed the call? No by rule it was a good call. But as far as the game, it was a poor call in a very very good baseball game. Thanks David

You mentioned in your earlier post, David, that F1 had 2 previous pitches where he apparently did not come to a good stop...........

Sounds like the crew chief missed the balk on 3 of the 4 pitches made........but, of course, supports his partner for making the call

Politically correct?????? (Aaaaarrrgggghhhhh)


Just my opinion,

Freix

Re: Re: We're not talking about results here!
 

Wonder how many others he missed during the game... perhaps some that would have been appropriately called for the situation at that time.

Oh well, I'm going over to read Carl's 1800 words.

Carl's words
 

For those of you that have gotten there yet

http://baseball.officiating.com/x/article/4415

Here are Carl's conclusions (minus 1761 words)...

• If the pitcher didn’t stop, it was a balk, intentional walk notwithstanding.
  
  The game situation (win/loss on the line) should have no effect on the decision to penalize the balk.
  
  If your supervisor says call it, do so.

I think the third item may have been what really prompted the umpire to make the call.

Perhaps he didn't miss the previous balks;I really don't know. When in position B or C, I talk to my pitchers. And if I saw previous balks I probably would have said, "Make sure you get a stop in there." And next time, "You missed stopping on that last pitch. Make sure you get a stop in there." And finally, after reminding him on the previous two pitches, (okay you dumbass) "THAT'S A BALK!"

Oops. Game over.:D

DTTB - surely you don't give that many warnings in an NCAA game. I can see that at 12U or subpar 14U, but HS or NCAA - nope.

Your right. Surely not at the level of this particular game.

from the NCAA 2005 rule book
 

I am not a NCAA umpire and there may be an AO that further defines the following...[portions are omitted for brevity]

9-1b
The set position shall be indicated when the pitcher stands...holding the ball in both hands in front of the body and coming to a complete and discernable stop...any natural mostion associated with the pitch commits the pitcher to pitch...
<B>PENALTY</B> Warning on first offense. Illegal pitch shall be call on subsequent offenses.

9-1b2
The pitcher shall deliver the pitch from a set position only after coming to a complete and discernable stop with his entire body.
<B>PENALTY</B> a "balk" shall be called.

9-3
A balk shall be called for the following action by a pitcher:
d. making an illegal pitch...
<B>PENALTY</B> balk

My deduction is that there is a rule book directive to warn on the first offense. However, the NCAA umpires that I know have made it clear to me that the warning should not be to the tune of bells and whistles, rather indiscreet is acceptable and preferred.