Ejection, ensuing fun, and a couple of questions
 

Strict OBR. One runner on, two outs. Batter is ejected for arguing a strike call that ran the count to 0-2. Of course the team manager comes out to "discuss" the situation with the plate umpire (which was not me, in case you were wondering ). Afterwards, the manager reports a substitute for the ejected player to continue the at-bat. Player does not promptly take his position in the batter's box. After the plate umpire tells the batter 3 times to take his position in the box with the batter still not doing so (he has taken practice swings, switched bats, AND traded helmets), umpire calls for a pitch to be thrown which appeared reasonably close to the strike zone and calls strike three, inning over.

Now the question: When the umpire called for the pitch to be thrown, the pitcher, who was standing behind the rubber, just stepped up on the rubber and threw the ball into the catcher without pause, taking a sign, or simulating taking a sign.

Question #1: With runners on base, should this be called a balk?

Question #2: If yes to question #1, given the circumstances, would you call it?

I would not call a balk. The ball is dead on a directed strike. No runner may advance.

Sorry, don't know the OBR rule, but in FED the pitch does not have to be thrown. Umpire simply declares strike.
Does the pitch have to be made in OBR?

If FED is same as OBR there is no balk issue.

I wouldn't call a balk either, but I find nothing to support your comment that the ball is dead on a directed pitch.


Tim.

TwoBits,

As jxt127 points out, this is what is commonly referred to as a "directed" (or "penalty") strike. It is defined in Rule 6.02(c). From your description, it sounds like the umpire's application was proper in this case.

This pitch is ALWAYS called a strike, regardless of its location.

There is no rule that requires a pitcher to take a sign prior to pitching. If he chooses to take a sign, he should do so while in contact with the rubber. Under OBR, it is a "don't do that", rather than a balk, for a pitcher to take signs while not in contact.

It is, of course, a balk for a pitcher to throw a "quick pitch" (i.e. pitch before the batter is "reasonably set" to receive the pitch) when there are runners on base. However, on a directed strike, the batter is NEVER going to be reasonably set, so a "quick pitch" doesn't really mean anything in this situation.

If the directed strike is strike three, the batter is out and does NOT become a runner in the event the pitch is not "caught".

The bit about the ball being "dead" on a directed strike is brand spanking new (one of the 23 changes) in the 2006 edition of the OBR as published both by The Sporting News, and, more recently, the MLB.com website.

Prior to the change, the ball remained live during a "directed strike", but the batter was "dead".

So, I would say no, the pitcher did not balk.

JM

Just found 6.02c:

If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter’s box during his time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike on the batter. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. After the penalty, the batter may take his proper position and the regular ball and strike count shall continue. If the batter does not take his proper position before three strikes have been called, the batter shall be declared out.

So if I'm reading this correctly, the pitch didn't even have to be thrown, correct?

Not a true statement. The ball remains alive and in play (runners may advance at their own risk) UNLESS the batter hits the directed pitch, in which case the ball becomes dead, the strike counts, and any baserunning advance is nullified.

The pitcher is ordered to "pitch." There is no mention that pitching regulations do not apply.

That having been said, I would be at least as lenient as on an intentional walk.

It should not be a balk, because the pitcher does not need to deliver a pitch. The umpire should have called "Time," then called a directed strike without requiring a pitch.

New Rule:

6.02 (c) If the batter refuses to take his position in the batter’s box during his time at bat, the umpire shall call a strike on the batter. The ball is dead, and no runners may advance. After the penalty, the batter may take his proper position and the regular ball and strike count shall continue. If the batter does not take his proper position before three strikes have been called, the batter shall be declared out.

Editor’s Note: the MLB Umpire Manual’s official interpretation was added here. The change is that no pitch need be thrown for a strike and the ball is now dead when such intentional strikes are called, thereby preventing a batter from jumping back into the box and hitting the ball.

TwoBits,

Under the "old" 6.02(c), the pitcher was, in fact, required to throw a pitch.

I honestly don't know whether he is required to do so under "new" 6.02(c), but with the new provision that the ball is "dead", it would make sense to me that there is no reason why he would need to and the umpire could simply "declare" a strike, a la FED, without the pitcher actually delivering a pitch.

JMO.

JM

Edited to add: I see that SD Steve has clarified the question while I was composing my speculative reply. Never mind.

I stand corrected. I know there have been some rules changes included in the 2006 edition. Just haven't had time to go through them all. I see also that MLB finally posted the new version on the website.

Remember, this is an experimental rule for 2006. It is the same as Fed. I don't know if the players union, or owners have voted to officially adopt this rule change, and I've yet to hear or see this being called in any Major or Minor league game. This will create a storm when it does, with a couple of ejections in the process.

The essence is to speed up the game, with batters constantly stepping out of the box. Look at the ritual of N. Garciapara prior to entering the box.

I think 6.02d is the experimental rule regarding one foot in the box like FED. There is no mention that 6.02c is experimental.

Well, I guess that with the new 12 second rule, if Nomar doesn't hop back in the box right away, and stop with the batting glove foolishness, the umpire can now just order up a strike. That would lead to a couple of ejections right off the bat.:)

Twobits the whole 6.02d is directly from Fed and the first sentence of 6.02d says it's experimental. Near the bottom of 6.02d is the "No Pitch Strike" for delay of game. Also in 6.02d it references 6.02c as the penalty for violation.

If I remember correctly the directed pitch has been in the rules for quite a few years.

So now OBR has two rules for the delay of game strike call. One is the "Directed Pitch Strike" 6.02c and the "No Pitch Strike" 6.02d. Now, the doosey of a question, which one to enforce? Hmmmm!!!! I believe the intent here from OBR is to have both in play for a year and then phase one out.

The shennanigans by batters should decrease. Batters can be superstitious in the on deck circle, when you get to the plate, just swing the bat.

I take that to mean that the penalty for violating 6.02d is the same as violating 6.02c.

Does anybody find it amusing that OBR is quoting FED rules now?