Balk
 

Last night in the Astros v Cardinals game, a Redbird doubled. Andy Pettitte - standing on the rubber - threw to first to appeal a baserunning error. Angel Hernandez called a balk and advanced R2 to third. Andy - off the rubber - next threw over to first, and Angel said nothing.

I think he was just half right.

Any comments?

The second half (saying nothing) was right.

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

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. ;)

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.

I'll take a stab at it....

Since Petitte did not step off the rubber, he balked because he threw to an unoccupied base (Ofcourse there was no runner attempting to go to first base at the time he did this). Because he did not step off the rubber, the throw to first base is considered a PLAY rather than an appeal attempt. Thus, he can not make another appeal because there was a "pitch, PLAY or attempted play" that already occurred. That's why Angel said nothing when Pettitte, who this time stepped off the rubber, threw back over there again.

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 ;)

Didn't see it but ...
 

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

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?

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.

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$$. :D

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)

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)

Yep. Only I thought it was 40. (Jim Booth, eTeamz)