I was told last night...

[SanDiegoSteve]

Evans says "break the plane" too:

On the "trick 3rd to 1st" move used by the righthander, the umpire should be especially alert for two criteria:

(1) the pitcher may not break the back plane of the rubber with his free foot before attempting the feint to 3rd; and

(2) in his feint to 3rd, he must break contact from the rubber with his pivot foot.

Breaking the plane would be a balk in violation of 8.01(a) and failure to break contact would be a balk in violation of 8.01(c)...not a direct step from the rubber ("while touching his plate").

[DG]

26 minutes into the Jim Evans balk video, Jim shows the LH pitcher breaking the back plane with his knee without breaking the back plane with his foot, and mentions that some LH pitchers have gotten creative with this. And it's legal. It's really not that hard to do, and I have seen this a number of times. A pitcher who can perfect this can really hold 'em close at 1B.

[nickrego]

Originally Posted by harmbu

I sure hope you are joking. The problem is I have encountered umpires before with that attitude. What do you do when you have an umpire who comes up with something that is way off and nowhere to be found in the rulebook.

I have no recourse but to call the assignor after the game when it is too late.

Here's the deal...

We don't carry rule books, we are supposed to know the rules. Now, most of us are not professional umpires, so we do make mistakes. And that includes interpretation of the rules. So, when a coach questions our application of a rule, if I think it is appropriate, I will give the coach the opportunity to prove me wrong, based on showing me the rule, in the rule book.

He can argue his rule knowledge against mine all day long, but he is not going to change my mind, or waste game time doing it. If all we have is two opinions, the umpire's must win out.

For the record, I only give the coach the opportunity if I am not sure about the situation. And that is only for those rare occasions when something obscure, that happens once in a career so your not really up on it, is the issue.

And don't ask me for an example. I can't tell you about a rule I don't know about. Why, because if I don't know about it, how can I know about it ?

[jkumpire]

Men,

Frankly, we all know that most of us have people in our area who do not take the game as seriously as we do. For some people, I would recommend carrying a book with them, or as the FED Umpire manual says, to have one easily available.

For most of us, we would never tolerate someone bringing out the book to try and correct us, it may well be an ejectable offense. But I woulkd rather have somebody get the call right by having a rule book with them to refer to than messing things up.

Of course, having said that we need to also admit that coaches should never carry a rule book with them to a game, live hand grenades in the dugout can always blow a coaches hand off or worse, get him ejected.....

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Nope -- it's the entire foot or any part of the leg. 9-3.l

You're right. I was being sloppy with my reading. I apologize.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

26 minutes into the Jim Evans balk video, Jim shows the LH pitcher breaking the back plane with his knee without breaking the back plane with his foot, and mentions that some LH pitchers have gotten creative with this. And it's legal. It's really not that hard to do, and I have seen this a number of times. A pitcher who can perfect this can really hold 'em close at 1B.

1. That isn't what I was talking about. I believe my discussion concerned breaking the back plane with the knee while keeping the foot in front of the rubber.

2. I know what they went through to get that shot.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by DG

26 minutes into the Jim Evans balk video, Jim shows the LH pitcher breaking the back plane with his knee without breaking the back plane with his foot. . .

Originally Posted by GarthB

1. That isn't what I was talking about. I believe my discussion concerned breaking the back plane with the knee while keeping the foot in front of the rubber.

Isn't that pretty much exactly the same thing?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Isn't that pretty much exactly the same thing?

Only for those who can't read or don't know the difference between breaking the plan of the rubber and in front of the rubber.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Evans says "break the plane" too:

On the "trick 3rd to 1st" move used by the righthander, the umpire should be especially alert for two criteria:

(1) the pitcher may not break the back plane of the rubber with his free foot before attempting the feint to 3rd; and

(2) in his feint to 3rd, he must break contact from the rubber with his pivot foot.

But his balk video clearly shows "entire foot".

[DG]

Originally Posted by GarthB

1. That isn't what I was talking about. I believe my discussion concerned breaking the back plane with the knee while keeping the foot in front of the rubber.

2. I know what they went through to get that shot.

I believe the segment on Evans balk video exactly explains breaking the back plane with the knee while keeping the foot in front of the back plane. If you are making a point about the foot in front of the rubber vs. back plane you are picking nits, it still has not passed the back plane.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Well, when they finally get around to rewording the comment from 8.05(a) to say "breaks the plane," then I will go with that. The way it reads now, the entire foot must be past the back edge of the rubber. If I work a MLB game anytime soon, I will go with their interpretation. The folks who decide these interpretations do so arbitrarily, with little regard as to what the rest of the world has to call.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by DG

I believe the segment on Evans balk video exactly explains breaking the back plane with the knee while keeping the foot in front of the back plane. If you are making a point about the foot in front of the rubber vs. back plane you are picking nits, it still has not passed the back plane.

Good Lord. My original post was not about picking nits. It was not even directly related to balks. It was on the ability of a human being to perform a contortionist act. ("I'll pay good money for a photo of a LH pitcher breaking the back plane of the rubber with his right knee while keeping his right foot in front of the rubber.")

Try it. I had four pitchers try it last night after a game just for for fun. Three nearly fell over. The fourth stayed upright, but had to turn his back completely to the batter to accomplish this.

I was not discussing a rule. I was not discussing balks.

Reading is fundamental.

Originally Posted by jkumpire

For most of us, we would never tolerate someone bringing out the book to try and correct us, it may well be an ejectable offense. D

Why would it be an ejectable offense for a coach to bring out the book? If a coach has a rules interpretation question, he has every right to bring out the book if he so desires, and you can't do a d$$$ thing about it. If you toss for this reason, it's more than likely either your pride or your ego got in the way. If the coach brings out the book and he's right, say thank you, change your call, suck it up, shut up and finish the game.

p.s. Be thankful that he doesn't make you look like a horse's a$$.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by BigGuy

Why would it be an ejectable offense for a coach to bring out the book? If a coach has a rules interpretation question, he has every right to bring out the book if he so desires, and you can't do a d$$$ thing about it. If you toss for this reason, it's more than likely either your pride or your ego got in the way. If the coach brings out the book and he's right, say thank you, change your call, suck it up, shut up and finish the game.

p.s. Be thankful that he doesn't make you look like a horse's a$$.

There's a right way and a wrong way to question a call / rules interp. Bringing out the rule book is the wrong way, and is considered "Showing up" the umpire. If a coach asks politely and it's a complicated ruel (think NCAA DH), then I might go (and have gone) into the dugouot to look it up.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

There's a right way and a wrong way to question a call / rules interp. Bringing out the rule book is the wrong way, and is considered "Showing up" the umpire. If a coach asks politely and it's a complicated ruel (think NCAA DH), then I might go (and have gone) into the dugouot to look it up.

Bob,

I understand the point that some would think it's showing up the umpire, and depending upon the demeanor of the coach there are times when I might think the same, and that there are better ways to get the point across. However, the act itself of bringing the book out in and of itself cannot be an ejectable offense because the coach does have the right to state his case regarding a rule interpretation. The only reason I say that is because there are umpires who would absolutely refuse to believe a coach was right and he was wrong unless the rule book was in their face. If the important thing is to make sure the correct call is made, then at some point in time either the umpire acknowledges the coach is right and corrects the call if in fact that is the case, or he says no, and the coach decides to protest the game. If you're the umpire what would you rather do, get the call right, or trust your luck on a protest?

Personally, I've never been shown the rule book at a game, and I would probably not like it. But on the other hand, refusing to acknowledge the book presented by a coach amounts to showing him up, and that is certainly not the intention either, and I can't justifiably toss him because of it.

There are many ways to address the issue, some a lot better than others, plus it can get out of hand. My point was not to suggest something argumentative, but to just suggest that absent any misconduct on the part of the coach, bringing out the book cannot result in an ejection and nothing more.