More on this balk thing

[chris s]

First of, I think Carl did a great job in his article. Bottom line is call what you are told to.

I had a similar call bout 5 years ago, it was 11-12's, all-stars. Championship game of tourney, 11:30 at nite, 2 rival cities and we are tied bottom 9. R3, F1 is standind behind rubber, B2 foot ouside box taking signs. F1 is staring down R3, not paying attention to batter....basically steps on rubber and wings it, not even a wind up. I nailed him, almost got my a$$ beat by a parent in the parking lot. TOTAL quick pitch, batters not reasonably set, no wind-up...at least he did step on rubber. Kid had stellar high school carrer, ended up at 6-3 220 with a full ride..only balk I ever called on him!!

Back to this NCAA stuff, remember when the "bounce" was legal?? Jumping from OBR to NCAA was a bitc*........

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by chris s
First of, I think Carl did a great job in his article.

While I thought his final conclusions were essentialy correct, I thought the effort was less than spectacular.

In particular, I took issue with the following statements from the article:


The posters so far have spread themselves over three easily predictable slices of bread, some of them stale. There are those who:

(1) publicly want to defend the call because if a Super Regional umpire made it, it must be right.

(2) "explain" how a pitcher during an intentional walk can gain an advantage for failing to come to a "complete and discernible stop with his entire body." (Since there is no time frame attached to the statute, we’re talking about something that could take less than a second.)

(3) hope their display of solidarity will bring them to the notice of powerful people. (I suggest the place for those posts is the ABUA. Doubtless if you go there, you’ll find I’m right.)

I think Carl's summary of the discussion that occurred in the relevant threads is wildly inaccurate. As to point (1), the defenders of the call weren't blindly defending the call of a big-dog, Super Regional umpire; they were, on the contrary, simply defending a fellow umpire's legitimate call from the loud and emotional criticism it elicited from alleged fellow umpires. The defenders were careful to note their surprise and disappointment at the "announcer mentality" that had overtaken a few supposedly veteran umpires.

On point (2), I'm pretty sure I was the only one who addressed the potential advantage the pitcher may have gained from being allowed to blow through a stop in set. My comments on that point clearly did NOT constitute an affirmative argument to justify the balk call; they were, on the contrary, simply a response to the "why call that balk when there's no advantage gained" crowd, making the point that nobody really knows whether that particular pitcher may have gained any advantage from being allowed to balk. Coach Childress's speculative comments on pitching mechanics notwithstanding, the fact remains nobody knows whether an advantage would have been gained or not, and the larger point is whether the balk involved an advantage gained or not is not the sole criterion by which the decision to call or not call this, or any other balk, should be made.

Point (3) is such an intellectually bankrupt statement that nothing need be said in response, other than there exists not a single comment in the relevant threads to support such a bizarre and ludicrous observation.

[mcrowder]

I had a problem with that part too, especially point 3. MOST of us here are essentially anonymous - those that aren't don't need random posts on the internet to get them attention from supervisors. On point 2, I also made a comment about the possibility that R3 was potentially harmed by the lack of a stop (if there was a PB), but like you, it was not an attempt to justify the balk as much as an attempt to debunk the "advantage/disadvantage" argument.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

While I thought his final conclusions were essentialy correct, I thought the effort was less than spectacular.

In particular, I took issue with the following statements from the article:


The posters so far have spread themselves over three easily predictable slices of bread, some of them stale. There are those who:

(1) publicly want to defend the call because if a Super Regional umpire made it, it must be right.

(2) "explain" how a pitcher during an intentional walk can gain an advantage for failing to come to a "complete and discernible stop with his entire body." (Since there is no time frame attached to the statute, we’re talking about something that could take less than a second.)

(3) hope their display of solidarity will bring them to the notice of powerful people. (I suggest the place for those posts is the ABUA. Doubtless if you go there, you’ll find I’m right.)

I think Carl's summary of the discussion that occurred in the relevant threads is wildly inaccurate. As to point (1), the defenders of the call weren't blindly defending the call of a big-dog, Super Regional umpire; they were, on the contrary, simply defending a fellow umpire's legitimate call from the loud and emotional criticism it elicited from alleged fellow umpires. The defenders were careful to note their surprise and disappointment at the "announcer mentality" that had overtaken a few supposedly veteran umpires.

On point (2), I'm pretty sure I was the only one who addressed the potential advantage the pitcher may have gained from being allowed to blow through a stop in set. My comments on that point clearly did NOT constitute an affirmative argument to justify the balk call; they were, on the contrary, simply a response to the "why call that balk when there's no advantage gained" crowd, making the point that nobody really knows whether that particular pitcher may have gained any advantage from being allowed to balk. Coach Childress's speculative comments on pitching mechanics notwithstanding, the fact remains nobody knows whether an advantage would have been gained or not, and the larger point is whether the balk involved an advantage gained or not is not the sole criterion by which the decision to call or not call this, or any other balk, should be made.

Point (3) is such an intellectually bankrupt statement that nothing need be said in response, other than there exists not a single comment in the relevant threads to support such a bizarre and ludicrous observation.

1 down, 2 to go.

[chris s]

Originally posted by Dave Hensley

While I thought his final conclusions were essentialy correct, I thought the effort was less than spectacular.

In particular, I took issue with the following statements from the article:


The posters so far have spread themselves over three easily predictable slices of bread, some of them stale. There are those who:

(1) publicly want to defend the call because if a Super Regional umpire made it, it must be right.

(2) "explain" how a pitcher during an intentional walk can gain an advantage for failing to come to a "complete and discernible stop with his entire body." (Since there is no time frame attached to the statute, we’re talking about something that could take less than a second.)

(3) hope their display of solidarity will bring them to the notice of powerful people. (I suggest the place for those posts is the ABUA. Doubtless if you go there, you’ll find I’m right.)

I think Carl's summary of the discussion that occurred in the relevant threads is wildly inaccurate. As to point (1), the defenders of the call weren't blindly defending the call of a big-dog, Super Regional umpire; they were, on the contrary, simply defending a fellow umpire's legitimate call from the loud and emotional criticism it elicited from alleged fellow umpires. The defenders were careful to note their surprise and disappointment at the "announcer mentality" that had overtaken a few supposedly veteran umpires.

On point (2), I'm pretty sure I was the only one who addressed the potential advantage the pitcher may have gained from being allowed to blow through a stop in set. My comments on that point clearly did NOT constitute an affirmative argument to justify the balk call; they were, on the contrary, simply a response to the "why call that balk when there's no advantage gained" crowd, making the point that nobody really knows whether that particular pitcher may have gained any advantage from being allowed to balk. Coach Childress's speculative comments on pitching mechanics notwithstanding, the fact remains nobody knows whether an advantage would have been gained or not, and the larger point is whether the balk involved an advantage gained or not is not the sole criterion by which the decision to call or not call this, or any other balk, should be made.

Point (3) is such an intellectually bankrupt statement that nothing need be said in response, other than there exists not a single comment in the relevant threads to support such a bizarre and ludicrous observation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~``
it is all politics