Balk/No Balk in Padres Game 7-20
 

Saw this on ESPN this morning, and could not believe it.

The Padres pitcher was in the windup position with a runner on third. R3 feinted the steal of home. SD RH pitcher steps off with his pivot foot first and throws home in an attempt to retire the runner. R3 did not go, but retreated to third. Umps call a balk and send the runner home. Good call, right?

Then the offensive coach comes out to argue, and the umps get together and reverse the call, placing the runner back on third! The ESPN anchor said that the pitcher couldn't balk while standing off the rubber (lol) and that's why they sent the runner back.

It looked CLEARLY to me, in real time, that the SD pitcher made motions naturally associated with his pitching motion (8.05g) after stepping off. They spot-shadowed his feet showing that he in fact stepped off first, then threw home. I didn't know what the balk was for until they spot-shadowed his feet and slowed it down - however, it looked just like he was throwing a pitch.

That's a balk to me, as it looked just like he was throwing a pitch.

What do you guys think?

Re: Balk/No Balk in Padres Game 7-20
 

All he did was quickly step off and throw home. He didnt make a motion associated with his pitching motion. He is allowed to throw home to retire the runner.

Re: Balk/No Balk in Padres Game 7-20
 

I don't think so. Sounds like he disengaged properly. What am I missing?

Did he immediately drop his hands to his sides?

He threw to a base, why would/should he?

The rule book states that he should. Doesn't matter if he throws to a base the hands are supposed to be dropped first.

That is not correct.

shaka,

You are correct that the rule book says a pitcher must drop his hands to his sides after disengaging. Although the rule book doesn't say this, it <b>means</b> he must drop his hands before re-engaging the rubber.

From the BRD:

JM

Could the balk call have been for throwing to an unoccupied base, with PU giving the pitcher no exemption based on "for the purpose of making the play" because the runner was not legitimately advancing, but had instead only feinted a steal?

What color is the sky in your world?

That's the only possible reason, although one could make an esoteric argument that the base WAS occupied, by the batter.

Apparently he was convinced by the other umpires that no balk was committed, for whatever reason.

Luke:

Imagine this scenario. LHP, R1 with bog lead. F1 comes set with hands about chin high. He disengages the rubber, but before he can throw to first he has to drop both hands to his sides and then bring them back up again and then throw. Heck, even I could steal on that move.

Nuh-unh. But you could make it safely back to first. Even if you did have a "bog" lead. What exactly is that anyway?
BWAHAHAAHAHAHAH!

Yeah I know. That is why the NF makes F1 stop with his hands below his chin. That way with his hands lower, he is able to throw to first faster.

I saw this spot on ESPN also.

Not that the pitcher is required to drop his hands, but his hand motion was consistent with a "wind-up". His foot <i>did</i> disengage the rubber, but while doing so, his hands were continuing with the typical wind-up motion that he typically uses for his normal delivery. I think that could constitute making a pitching motion while disengaged from the rubber ... which would be a balk.

Such a motion is patently unfair to the batter who could now be liable for batter's interference should he swing or hit the thrown ball. How is the batter to notice the subtle movement of the foot disengaging the rubber when EVERY other aspect of the pitcher's motion resembles his normal delivery?

Imagine if the batter had two strikes. He could hardly GUESS as to the status of the delivery. Is it a pitch or an attempted play?

I think it was a balk.

I once called the following a balk during a high school varsity game. With runners at 1st and 3rd, the pitcher assumed the windup position. After being reminded by his infielders to pitch from the stretch, the pitcher responded, "Ah, he's going to steal anyway." This was all a ruse that this team had apparently done before.

As the pitcher brought his hands up to begin his windup, R1 took off immediately. But, instead of taking a rocker step back with his FREE foot, the pitcher stepped back with his PIVOT foot. He then aborted his delivery and attempted to make a play on R1.

I immediately called it a balk to which the pitcher (and his coach) quickly pointed out that he had STEPPED OFF.

Yes he did, but he used a pitching motion as a means of stepping off. Highly deceptive and completely unfair to the offense.

Balk!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Jul 22nd, 2005 at 03:08 AM]