What happened with Jeff Nelson's call on Roy Oswalt 3-1 pitch on the top of the 2nd inning?

As Oswalt was pitching, HP Umpire Jeff Nelson pointed to the pitcher midstream. Then after the pitch. Nelson seemed to call a balk, as he was moving his arms as if to say Oswalt did not come to a stop. However, instead of blowing the play dead and advancing the runner on 1B to 2B, he called ball 4 which also advances the runner but also gives the batter 1B. Very odd, never seen this before. At first I thought he called a balk, then I thought a quick pitch for ball 4, but at the end it was just ball 4 with a delayed balk calling.

During the broadcast the announcers said they spoke with observer Jim McKean, and he said this was the correct ruling.

Here is a link to the story that it explains it a lot better than I can: http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/a...=.jsp&c_id=atl

Mostly confusion on part of the announcers.

The balk rule says that if the batter-runner and all runners advanced at least one base on a balk, then the balk is nullified and the play stands. On the 3-1 pitch, a balk was called by Nelson and the pitch was Ball 4. Thus, both the BR and R1 advanced one base. The announcers went on and on about calling the balk and being emphatic. Have these guys never watched a ball game? A good point was made about hitting a HR on a balk, do you think the offensive manager wants the balk enforced and nullify a HR?

Thanx guys.

Anyway, I don't understand WHY Nelson called the balk.
As Umpire47 noticed, Nelson made a clear signal as if to say Oswalt did not come to a stop, but I'm not sure he actually didn't....

Re:
 

I don't think Nelson has never missed a call in his career.

I've seen more managers argue with Nelson than most other umpires, but in almost all the situations he's been right.

He also has the best out call, imo.

Kudos to him.

I spoke to Jeff about this and had a few laughs with him over the fact that he once again was in the middle of postseason ruling situations. We reminisced about his obstruction call at third in the Giants LCS a couple years ago, where he ruled the runner was obstructed at third but the runner's being tagged out at home stood.

Jeff also found it rather odd that he had all the whackers at first in the previous game, bringing Bobby Cox out of the dugout each inning there for a while.

Jeff got all the whackers right, and I could not believe Cox kept coming out! Then Cox didn't come out on the call at third, which was the only one he had a legit beef on.

That stupid FOX ex-rat announcer saying that he should have killed the ball on the balk call proved the point that many players and coaches have very limited knowledge of the rules, and how they are correctly interpreted and applied. Of course, he might have been thinking of his kid's HS games, in which he would have been correct.

Which is why I think Federation Rules has it wrong here. Is one going to tell me he prefers killing the ball and enforcing a balk rather than letting a batter hit a 2-run homer, for example? No frickin' way!

Amen, you're preachin' to the chior! I've seen it happen:
Balk!...crack! HR that doesn't count. Fed Rules have it wrong on many rules, the "delayed dead ball" being one of them!

There is nothing wrong with this. If you read the rulebook and understood why certain NF rules differ from the OBR, it would make sense.

Not quite right!
 

A good umpire is going to stop action anyway most all of the time.

When he hollers "balk" the batter is going to stop and many times the pitcher.

The announcers were completely incorrect in their talk about the balk and that is why FED makes so much more sense - these guys make a living calling baseball and don't understand it.

FED makes it easy for the umpires and the fans to understand.

Thanks
David

I've been doing HS Ball since '87, and I've read the Fed rules backwards and forwards. We get tested every year on them. Maybe I'm just dense (not), but many of their rule differences don't make sense. Every year they change one thing or the other, change wordings, add emphasis. Just when you get the rules straight, they change them again. Most umpires I know feel the same way, they prefer the OBR over the NF rules.

I would agree with the comment about Nelson not missing a call ever or very often. I watched a game early in the season during Inter League play. It was between the Braves and Royals.

Nelson was the 2nd Base umpire. Ball hit to the SS. It was your common 6-4-3 double play. However, there was interference by the runner coming to 2nd who slid way out of his way (replay confirms it) to break up the double play.

Nelson, immediately called the runner out at 2nd and then called the batter runner out at 1st for the interference caused by the base runner going into 2nd base.

Absolutley the correct call made by Nelson. He is one of the top young umpires MLB has right now and thus why is working the playoffs almost every year or every other year.

He will be in the World Series if not this year, very soon.

I told you, it lists the reasons in the front of the book.

You would prefer the never changing OBR?

Yeah, those 4 rule changes are really hard to remember.

Luke, maybe you didn't understand what I said. I said that I don't care for Federation Rules, and the majority of umpires that I know feel the same way. Here, we call High School Baseball "High School", but we call all other levels of ball "baseball". That should give you an idea of our disdain of NF rules. We follow the rules, enforce the rules, but we sure don't care for them at all.

Yes I prefer the OBR, even though rules occasionally are changed, case in point, the ever changing strike zone definition. At least the Fed finally is allowing pitchers to turn their shoulders before coming set. That was one asinine rule, for example.

It isn't that the annual rule changes are hard to remember, it's just that they are usually petty, insignificant changes which are totally unnecessary.

By the way, here's another rule we don't much care for, in fact, it is a huge joke among veteran umps here:
The option of restricting the coach to the dugout instead of ejecting him. Nobody in our association (which, by the way, is one of the oldest, and most respected nationwide) would even consider restricting the coach. Please tell me you have never restricted a coach to the bench!

Steve

Understanding of the rules might help
 

Not to belabor a point, but there is always a reason FEd puts their rules in.

Example - restrict a coach because it might keep the team from a forfeit.

Maybe in your area there are so many coaches per team that if they lost the head coach they don't have to forfeit, but in our areaa, we have to have one coach per team or there is a forfeit. (problem is some teams only have one coach - so you have a choice to either restrict or forfeit)

So that's why the rule. I've never had to use it, but there's a reason why its there.

Actually in our areas, more or the teams play FED than OBR even down into the 14-15's select ball teams etc.,

Thanks
David

As David has already said, there is a good reason for this rule. As I have said before, if one underdsands why the NF makes its rules, they aren't weird.

One of the oldest, most respected associations nationwide? Now in my games when I hear the coaches say "I wish we had those good umpires from that associatin in San Diego", I know what they mean.

Okay David, point taken.

In San Diego, we do usually have at least 2, but usually 3 or more adult coaches per team, so they can spare one :D

Also, the coaches pretty much know the umpires here well enough to know that we don't do any restrictions, so they know when to quit usually. I only eject 1 or 2 a year usually, and sometimes get thorough the whole year without ejecting anybody. Now back in the beginning....:D

Yes, the coaches would be correct. No insult intended, but we are. More MLB umpires from us that any other single association in America. Facts are facts. One of our instructors (for the probationaries), is a MLB umpire.
By the way, there are many associations here, I was only refering to mine in particlular.

There is a reason for all the rules, whether or not the reason is a good one is debateable, which is what we are doing, isn't it. Let's not debate it any longer, as I am tired of it. I have already acknowledged that this rule has its place in some areas.

I've read it and am quite familiar with it. Sorry, Luke, but there IS something wrong with giving the defense a huge advantage in having a balk enforced rather than, say, a 3-run homer counting.

Not every Fed rule makes sense, and this is clearly one of them.

Is there something wrong with this: There is R1, F1 balks, and B2 hits to RF, R1 tries for third but is thrown out, the umpire then sends R1 back to second and enforces the balk?

The NF writes rules for "ease of administration", as they know not all of their officials are competent. It is much easier to enforce the balk when the ball is dead, than have to think about when to enforce the balk and when not to.

Yes, the coaches would be correct. No insult intended, but we are. More MLB umpires from us that any other single association in America. Facts are facts. One of our instructors (for the probationaries), is a MLB umpire.
By the way, there are many associations here, I was only refering to mine in particlular.[/QUOTE]

Don't pro umpires have to go to pro school before they get into MiLB? Therefore, you could have some rookie umpire in your association who really sucks. He goes to school, and get to MLB. Now when he was in your association, he was terrible, but now you go around bragging about how your association has another MLB umpire (That is assuming that this guy is no longer active in the association, as he has works enough games for MLB).

I'm not saying that your association is bad, or that you guys don't have good members, but you can't really gauge how good an association is by how many ex-members work pro ball.

Aside from all the discussion on Nelson, Fed, announcers, etc, does anyone who saw it live or on replay agree with the call, ie a no stop balk?

It didn't look like a balk to me, but I wasn't there, so who knows? After all, isn't there a two-second delay via television? :p

happens all the time
 

I saw it and I thought it was a good call.

I thought the announcers beat it to death because they didn't understand the rule.

So they made up something and went on for two innings with nothing but nonsense.


Now talking about a missed call, the call at first Sunday on the throw by Chipper where U1 said that Franco pulled his foot was absolutely wrong.

That's a LL call and he blew it, the ball was obviously in his glove before the foot came off. And that would have ended the inning I believe and two batters later grand slam and the game is 6-5.


Thanks
David

[Edited by David B on Oct 10th, 2005 at 10:49 PM]

Re: happens all the time
 

No: the announcers, at first, questioned the balk, not the fact that the batter was sent to first base.
Steve Lyons watched the replay of the pitching move by Oswalt and said "that's a stop right there!".

Re: Re: happens all the time
 

You must have been watching another game or something. The two announcers (don't know who they were) went all over the world with their interpretations and wondering how the pitch counted, but many times when the pitcher balks the umpire doesn't count the pitch etc.,

<b>All they needed to say was the rule: "if the batter runner and all runners advance at least one base, then the balk is ignored." </b>

They never mentioned that part of the rule, and went on for two innings still questioning how the interpretation was arrived upon by the PU.

It was absolutely horrible for kids and parents watching the game because nowhere was a correct ruling given for the play.

And the announcer said he stopped, (but that was in slo mo) and in fast motion it looked like a balk everytime, at least to me (and I guess to PU since he called it)

thansk
David

Ok, I report the words of the announcers:


Josh Lewin: "Let's go back to Chris Meyers"
Chris Meyers: "The official scorer here, Trey Wilkinson, wants to talk to the officials as well he's paging through the rulebook, it's a so-called balk for now. But Jim McKean, the officials supervisor, said that you called the balk you can't call the play to stop as well if the batter had homered, the HR would have counted and it would have been no balk. So, maybe it was a delayed call on the balk and Oswalt continued through the motion of that pitch for ball 4...."

Steve Lyons: "And that's why I have trouble with this, because if you're gonna call a balk as an umpire, you stop the play, you're very emphatic about it. If there's a 0-0 count on the hitter and you call a balk and the pitcher go ahead and throws the pitch anyway, the runner moves to 2nd base and it's a no pitch. So why it would be any different in that situation?"

Why would it be any different? Because the batter reaches base.

Now go pull your pants back up, dingbat....

At least this wasn't in a game McCarver was calling. That would have been HELL.

But all in all that crew did a good job. Hopefully the LCS will see the same.

Steve Lyons, and other ex-rat broadcasters, often have no clue of the rules and their interpretations. They should be better informed about the rules, perhaps attend an umpire rules clinic, before being allowed to open their pie holes. It would be great if an umpire could be on call for these bozos to get the correct ruling from.