Balk

[bob jenkins]

The second half (saying nothing) was right.

Whether the first half was right or wrong depends on why the balk was called.

[mbyron]

I'll play.

I'm guessing Carl thinks that Hernandez was wrong to call the balk, since Pettitte was throwing to first in order to make a play, which is the allowable exception to the rule prohibiting a throw to an unoccupied base.

I'm not taking a stand on that issue, other than to observe that the customary way for this play to unfold is for F1 to step off before throwing to a base for an appeal.

When Pettitte threw over the second time, the defense had lost their right to appeal the possible base-running error by screwing up the first attempt, and Hernandez made no call. I'm guessing that Carl thinks that this call was correct, or at least correct given the first call.

Carl, you know where to send my prize.

[3appleshigh]

Well, i know in Canada anyway, an APPEAL is not a play, so he would not have been throwing over for the purposes of making a play.

Further thinking,
I would say this is the case everywhere, since you can repeatedly appeal, multiple runners, same runner different bags ... and once there has been a pitch or play you lose the right to appeal. Therefore an appeal is not a PLAY. Therefore he did not throw to an unoccupied bag for the purpose of making a play.

[Rich Ives]

From the MLBUM:

It is NOT a balk for the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, to throw to an unoccupied base IF it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. (Note that the pitcher does not have to step back off the rubber to make an appeal play.)

Haven't seen the video.

Now either AH blew it, or called it for some other reason, such as Pettitte's foot passed behind the rubber.

Why is it that AH's name comes up so often on apparently botched calls?

[Sal Giaco]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

From the MLBUM:

It is NOT a balk for the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, to throw to an unoccupied base IF it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. (Note that the pitcher does not have to step back off the rubber to make an appeal play.)

Haven't seen the video.

Now either AH blew it, or called it for some other reason, such as Pettitte's foot passed behind the rubber.

Why is it that AH's name comes up so often on apparently botched calls?

Thanks Rich. I should have know better than to stick up for AH

[David B]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

From the MLBUM:

It is NOT a balk for the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, to throw to an unoccupied base IF it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. (Note that the pitcher does not have to step back off the rubber to make an appeal play.)

Haven't seen the video.

Now either AH blew it, or called it for some other reason, such as Pettitte's foot passed behind the rubber.

Why is it that AH's name comes up so often on apparently botched calls?

Seems that Hernandez simply blew it the first time. Unless he did something rediculous no balk should have been called.

Since a play was made the second attempt was correct to be ignored.

Thansk
David

[Sal Giaco]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

From the MLBUM:

It is NOT a balk for the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, to throw to an unoccupied base IF it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. (Note that the pitcher does not have to step back off the rubber to make an appeal play.)

Haven't seen the video.

Now either AH blew it, or called it for some other reason, such as Pettitte's foot passed behind the rubber.

Why is it that AH's name comes up so often on apparently botched calls?

A quick question Rich - Am I the only one who thought that a pitcher has to step off the rubber in order to make an appeal? Most of us do not have the MLBUM so if you did not show us that, my explanation would have been correct.

I just saw the video and that's what the announcers were also saying (ofcourse we all know that's not worth much). The batter also pointed at Pettite as soon as he did it as did AH who pointed at him as well, then called time and pointed the runner over. Then when Pettitte tried to do it the "correct" way, AH simply shook his head as if to say No, you can't appeal it now/again".

Perhaps AH missed that paragraph in the MLBUM and if that interpretation is not written anywhere else, we all would have ruled it the same way. What do you guys think?

[Carl Childress]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

A quick question Rich - Am I the only one who thought that a pitcher has to step off the rubber in order to make an appeal? Most of us do not have the MLBUM so if you did not show us that, my explanation would have been correct.

I just saw the video and that's what the announcers were also saying (ofcourse we all know that's not worth much). The batter also pointed at Pettite as soon as he did it as did AH who pointed at him as well, then called time and pointed the runner over. Then when Pettitte tried to do it the "correct" way, AH simply shook his head as if to say No, you can't appeal it now/again".

Perhaps AH missed that paragraph in the MLBUM and if that interpretation is not written anywhere else, we all would have ruled it the same way. What do you guys think?

Sal: You also don't have the BRD because that is covered, of course, in my book.

Before making an appeal, the only reason the pitcher needs to go to the pitcher's plate is when the ball is dead.

This ball never became dead, clearly, or Angel could not have called a balk at all.

Andy didn't need to KNOW anything except he wanted to appeal. He did, properly, and if Angel balked him for throwing to an unoccupied base, he will have heard about long before now.

I plan to email the union office and get their (Rick Roder's) take on this.

As someone pointed out, it's almost always best to think Angel blew it.

[Sal Giaco]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

Sal: You also don't have the BRD because that is covered, of course, in my book.

Before making an appeal, the only reason the pitcher needs to go to the pitcher's plate is when the ball is dead.

This ball never became dead, clearly, or Angel could not have called a balk at all.

Andy didn't need to KNOW anything except he wanted to appeal. He did, properly, and if Angel balked him for throwing to an unoccupied base, he will have heard about long before now.

I plan to email the union office and get their (Rick Roder's) take on this.

As someone pointed out, it's almost always best to think Angel blew it.

Then I guess we can add (if it already isn't in there) that a pitcher must step off the rubber before he throws to make an appeal to the 25 Common misconceptions of Baseball (ie hands are part of the bat, tie goes to the runner, etc)

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Sal Giaco

A quick question Rich - Am I the only one who thought that a pitcher has to step off the rubber in order to make an appeal?

I don't know if you're the only one, but I don't think MLBUM is needed to make the correct ruling (although it clarifies the issue, I agree).

The "an appeal is not a play" statement only applies for the purposes of making subsequent appeals. Withou it, a team would be forced to only make one appeal. For all other rules (balks, for example) an appeal is a play (except, apparently, in Canada).

[BigUmp56]

It's in the AR to 7.10.


If a pitcher balks when making an appeal, such act shall be a play. An appeal should be clearly intended as an appeal, either by a verbal request by the player or an act that unmistakably indicates an appeal to the umpire. A player, inadvertently stepping on the base with a ball in his hand, would not constitute an appeal. Time is not out when an appeal is being made.

AH must have had some reason for calling the balk. I can't imagine that he would have thought they weren't throwing to first for an appeal considering Belliard was already standing on second.


Tim.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Well, i know in Canada anyway, an APPEAL is not a play, so he would not have been throwing over for the purposes of making a play.

Snotty Canadian comment aside, ordinarily you're right about an appeal not being a play. But as Rich Ives's post indicates, pro instruction is to treat a missed-base appeal as a play for the purpose of enforcing the balk rule.

I doubt, however, Andy Pettitte knew that.

[3appleshigh]

Actually, it was not a snotty canadian comment, Baseball canada has Defined a play in it's own rules separate to OBR. That is why I said my opinion was based on Canadian rules, As we since have seen MLB has a different stance. In Canada it would have been a Balk. Sorry but bringing up Canada is like Fed or OBR. So put that in your pompous U.S. A$$.

[lawump]

I have not seen the video, so I have no comments on the merits of Mr. Hernandez's balk call.

I'll add:

"If there is a runner, it is not a balk when the in-contact pitcher throws to an unoccupied base to appeal...If the defense insists on appealing even though the appeal cannot be upheld due to some rule, it is not a balk (for throwing to an unoccupied base). However, if there is a runner, a balk could occur for some other reason during this attemp to appeal." J/R Manual, pg. 39 (1997 ed.). (emphasis added)

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by 3appleshigh

Actually, it was not a snotty canadian comment, Baseball canada has Defined a play in it's own rules separate to OBR. That is why I said my opinion was based on Canadian rules, As we since have seen MLB has a different stance. In Canada it would have been a Balk. Sorry but bringing up Canada is like Fed or OBR. So put that in your pompous U.S. A$$.

If the comment wasn't snotty, then I apologize for the misinterpretation.

I looked up Baseball Canada's website (http://baseball.ca), and they do NOT have an independent rule code. The site links to the MLB rules site, and the Microsoft Word document labeled "Canadian Rules as of 2006" is mostly regulations for little boy ball, plus a few interps. That does not constitute it as a distinct rule set: it is, at most, modified OBR.

The definition of "PLAY" that it includes is a standard OBR interp, and consistent with the statement in 7.10(d) that "An appeal is not to be interpreted as a play or an attempted play."

Nothing in "Canadian Rules as of 2006" contradicts the standard OBR interp that throwing to an unoccupied base for an appeal IS a play for the limited purpose of applying 8.05(d), and so is NOT a balk.