Should 2 outs have been awarded ?

[greymule]

Well, if you're old-fashioned, you must like the the FED balk. (immediate deadball) It's the same as the old OBR rule.

How long ago was a balk an immediate dead ball in OBR? I was never aware of it.

[UMP25]

Originally posted by PWL
Speaking of the dead ball balk rule. I had to enforce the catcher's balk of all things the other day. The catcher moved up and over so much before the pitcher even started his delivery it was patethic. I gave him a warning. He did it again about two batters later and I balked him. He was so far out and over he was in the next batter's box. A few innings later he moved real far over, but the pitch was right over the plate, and the batter smoked it over the left centerfield fence. Glad I decided to let it go that time.

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A CATCHER'S BALK!!!

Only the pitcher balks. Period.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by greymule
Well, if you're old-fashioned, you must like the the FED balk. (immediate deadball) It's the same as the old OBR rule.

How long ago was a balk an immediate dead ball in OBR? I was never aware of it.

The year I was born, 1956, was the year OBR did away with the immediate dead ball rule, and it is still exactly the same today.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by UMP25

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A CATCHER'S BALK!!!

Only the pitcher balks. Period.

Only the pitcher is charged with balks, but the catcher can cause a balk on an intentional walk, and that balk is commonly referred to as a "catcher's balk."

I'm not sure if PWL's example is a balk, however. It looks like the catcher is setting up in his stance outside the box. This is not a balk. It is not legal either, and I would not tolerate this. I've seen it a lot, and why a coach would teach the catcher to leave the umpire unprotected is beyond me. I tell the catcher to get his butt in front of me and move his glove in and out for location, not his body. I further tell said catcher that his #1 job is to keep the ball off of me, and anything else is secondary to job #1.

This is the so-called "catcher's balk" rule:

Rule 4.03(a):

"When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory. (a)The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.
Official Notes - Case Book - Comments: PENALTY: Balk."

From Jaska/Roder:

"It is a balk by the pitcher when:

While intentionally walking a batter, begins his motion to pitch while the catcher is outside of the catcher's box."

So, I think what happened with PWL may not have qualified as a balk, but needed to have a stop put to it none the less.

NOTE: Rule 4.03(a) is very rarely enforced as it is accepted that the catcher moves out of his box early on intentional walks. Only in blatant cases is it enforced.


[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Mar 20th, 2006 at 02:32 AM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by GarthB

Well, if you're old-fashioned, you must like the the FED balk. (immediate deadball) It's the same as the old OBR rule.

Call me old-fashioned....I like the old OBR rule about ejecting any fan who hisses or hoots at the umpire.

[nickrego]

Originally posted by UMP25

Yes, there WAS interference, whether R2 intentionally let the ball hit him or whether it accidentally hit him. It still is interference. You're thinking that interference has to be some sort of intentional act. While that can occur in many situations, of course, I submit to you that most interferences are unintentional; yet they're still interferences nonetheless.

It's not listed specifically as Interference in the FED book, 6-4-2k. But it has been quoted here that if it was intentional, consider it Interference, and call the second out if it prevented a double play. Although, you can weave your way through and end up at 8-4-2g.

Awe heck, call everybody out, throw everybody out, and let's go home !

[BigUmp56]

Originally posted by UMP25

THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A CATCHER'S BALK!!!

Only the pitcher balks. Period.

Yes and no. While it is charged to the pitcher it is the catcher who committs the balk Steve mentioned and usually this one. I say usually because another fielder could committ the infraction but it would be so rare that I doubt I will ever see it.

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

Cross References: 5.09(c), 7.04(d) 8.05 Penalty

Tim.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by nickrego

I checked the rule book, and unlike in other sections, it does not specifically state we can award a 2nd out, where a 2nd out may have been prevented by the infraction.

The rule DOES Specifically say when you can award a second out.

OBR Language - Willfully and Deliberately with OBVIOUS Intent

FED Language - If in the judgement of the umpire a runner included the BR interferes in ANY WAY and prevents a DP ANYWHERE "2 for the pirce of 1"

OBR is more stringent in their ruling and FED is more liberal, however, in the play presented under all 3 Major Rule Codes the call is

1. TIME
2. That's Interference
3. R1 is out
4. R3 back to third base R1 to second and the BR to first.

Let's not complicate matters. Unless R1 purposely stood there and allowed the ball to hit him/her we have one out on the play. Yes FED is more liberal in their interp but not on the play given unless of course you want to go home early (Grin!)

Pete Booth

[mbyron]

1. The balk is charged to the pitcher because he's the one who balks, not the catcher. There's no violation for the catcher standing in the wrong place; there's a violation for the pitcher pitching when the catcher is in the wrong place. The term 'catcher's balk' is common but misleading, since it really is (always) the pitcher who balks.

2. Interference on a batted ball may be intentional or merely negligent. Interference on a thrown ball must be intentional. In the case where R2 is hit by a batted ball, intent is not necessary for the interference call: R2 must get out of the way (note: not merely try to get out of the way), and if he doesn't, call interference. (I'm ignoring the qualification about runner being immediately behind an infielder playing the batted ball...)

[UMP25]

Originally posted by BigUmp56

Yes and no. While it is charged to the pitcher it is the catcher who committs the balk Steve mentioned and usually this one. I say usually because another fielder could committ the infraction but it would be so rare that I doubt I will ever see it.

7.07 If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead.

Cross References: 5.09(c), 7.04(d) 8.05 Penalty

Tim.

No, it is the pitcher who commits the balk. You can blame the catcher all you want, but the pitcher and only the pitcher is charged with a balk. Call it semantics; I'm just stating what it is.

Look, I know full well the rule surrounding this situation, and I don't need people quoting me it six ways to Sunday. It's a rarely enforced balk committed by the pitcher that can be avoided if the plate ump simply tells the catcher to stay put. In 29 years of umpiring, I have never called it, but I have more than once advised a catcher to not be so quick to leave his little area.

Sometimes I wonder if I asked someone here what time it was, I'd have a dozen responses all telling me how to build a watch.

[BigUmp56]

Sorry, I guess I didn't realize you knew it all already. How could I have been so dense as to have an opinon contrary to yours. I should have known that 7.07 was written for Bugs Bunny. He is, after all, the only pitcher I've ever seen deliver the ball and then step on or in front of homeplate and take the pitch away from the batter.

I'll leave you high atop that pedastal you've so eloquently just perched yourself on.

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Mar 20th, 2006 at 10:49 AM]

[UMP25]

Oh, don't get your panties all in a tizzy now. I was just explaining something. Besides, my season's about to start; hence my getting cranky again.

[BigUmp56]

I can accept that. I call my first game this Friday even though the temp isn't supposed to get much over 30 degrees.
Brrr.........


Tim.