Why the name calling? I'm playing the devils advocate some times. sorry

I'm pretty new at this about 3 years off and on.

I don't mean to annoy you guys but I really thought that was a balk. I get that from reading the rule.

Puhleeze.

The rule is written correctly. The penalty applies only to paragraph (a) just as it is written. No mistake. Just idiots who can't read.

I don't get it?

Yes, and you declared your 'understanding' of this rule as correct. The problem is that the correct understanding had already been explained earlier in this thread, so you obviously ignored it.

Look at rule 4.03 in its entirety. It starts with one general rule and then has three articles (a, b, and c). The balk penalty is listed after article 'a' only, and in the MLB website, it's even indented the same as article 'a'. If this penalty was truly meant to apply to all of 4.03, then it would not have been written like this! The logical (and correct) interpretation is that this balk penalty applies only to 4.03a.

Do you get it now?

For your convenience, you can see the rule on the MLB website here.

Well don't you think if no one questioned anything then we would just go through life doing exactly what others tell us to do.

I don't know maybe the framers of the game intended on calling a balk in this situation, maybe not. Don't you think that calling a balk would be a better penalty then throwing someone out of the game?

Maybe it is just my upbringing but I question everything... why not? what does it hurt? I'm learning something and maybe the silent majority that does not have the nuts to question you guys is learning from it too.

Anyway thank you for your input and I understand the rule I actually never thought about it before. I don't think it has happened in the 3 years I've ump'ed. Anyway if some one is in foul ground now I will throw them out.

UmpLarry is comparing your strange posts to those of a certain poster who lives north of the Canadian border.

When someone explains the correct interpretation of a rule, you should then post your screen name as an answer and leave it at that.:rolleyes:

You just do that. Everytime.

Gotta admit, you're one of the most entertaining trolls we've had in a long time.

What is a troll and why the name calling?

Daniel posted this situation, he wanted to start a dicussion,

As a discussion was created, Daniel got what he wanted,

Daniel posted a case play that is oft times called a balk,

A rules myth is what it is, the interpretation he has to learn.

Let me take a crack at this you guys!

oyaisee, this is your last chance to understand that you are wrong. Pay attention now:

The balk penalty applies only to 4.03 (a), not to (b) or (c)! That is why the penalty follows 4.03 (a).

It does not follow the body copy preceeding (a), nor does it follow (b) or (c). This means it only applies to the letter that it follows. Not the general part of the rule, and not the specific sections (b) and (c) of the rule.

If it were covering the whole rule, the penalty would have been listed following section (c), to include all three sections of the rule.

I hope this makes it clear that if you call a balk for F3 standing in foul territory for a pickoff, then you are misapplying the rule. It is a simple "Don't do that." If F3 persists in disregarding your order to stop, he is subject to ejection, which is the proscribed penalty for failure to obey the order of the umpire.

No. No, I don't. You don't automatically eject F3 when he's set up straddling the foul line on a pick-off attempt. As was explained by others here already (several times, in fact), you first tell them to comply with the rule. If they refuse to comply, then you eject them.

If you were honestly just questioning, then I suggest that you put more care into phrasing your posts. For example, your first post on this thread was:

That didn't come across as questioning to me. That was straight up saying that you were right and everyone who disagreed was wrong when in fact you were wrong. And that is trollish indeed.

oyaisee

Daniel is traveling tonight on a plane.

I can see the red tail lights heading for Spain.

And I can see Daniel waving goodbye.

God it looks like Daniel must be the clouds in my eye.


:) Nice poem Richard!

hold me close, i'm tony danza.

Last March I was at the Jim's Liberty Classic in NJ. This "fielder's balk" concept was been brought up and Jim immediately shot it down as something that does not exist. The balk penalty, he explained, only applies to the (a) sub-part that refers to the catcher.