Fair or foul
 

i have no idea whether this has been discussed before, but I love discussing this locally trying to find an answer.

A player in the field, he straddles the foul line behind a runner that is on 3rd base.

Would this be a balk, since he is not in fair territory?
Now, you may say that one foot in and one foot out is considered in fair territory.

I say if you have a runner running down this same line, he straddles the line. If the ball hits him in FAIR TERRITORY, he is out. If it hits him in FOUL TERRITORY, he is safe. The key word "Foul".


I hope this opens a lot of discussion and theories. Because "I think" it truly is interpretation of the RULE.

Michael:D :D :D

the first scenario is not a balk. that penalty is only applied ot the catcher leaving his box. the second scenario is common knowledge. sorry, mike, but neither scenario will spark much discussion on here.

Perhaps we can have a discussion about drinking and posting.

It's a myth that straddling the line is a "fielder's balk." It's specifically defined as legal in FED. It's not specifically defined under OBR, and different interps allow one foot, or require two feet in fair territory. But, it's only enforced if noticed, and it's just a "don't do that."

bobbybanaduck,
So it only applies to a catcher, so a player may play outside fair territory? (Interpretation of one foot in and one foot out)

kylejt,
I like to bring up things that are not specifically in the rule books. I also am aware that there are some things you just don't call. But if you can't talk amongst your fellow "Blues" then who can you talk to? As far as drinking, yeah I have had 3 glasses of tea this evening.

bob jenkins,
Very well said.


Michael

yep, LOVE to see guys-w-2-posts put something up like its neverbeen heard of before :rolleyes: 1 foot in foulground? wow yea THATs never happend on a baseball field.

"ilove to put up stuff not in th rule book" har har har, oh forgot, the rulebook is the ONLY place to find guidance :D

A player in the field, he straddles the foul line behind a runner that is on 3rd base.

The most interesting thing about this post is that it is the only one I have ever seen on this site that has contained a grammatical construction such as the above. In fact, it contains two of them (sort of), the other being

if you have a runner running down this same line, he straddles the line.

This device of simply naming the subject and then referring to it with a pronoun is not incorrect, but it's rather archaic and usually found in older poetry. "The smith, a mighty man is he . . ."

Anyway, the fielder, he can't balk.

No one said a player, other than the catcher, may begin play in foul territory. RIF

What was said was that the penalty of a balk under this section only applied to when the catcher leaves his box early. This is explicit in the rule book. Again, RIF.

cmon guys, go easy on the guy! he's trying to learn.

but bob has the correct interpretation. in NFHS he can have one foot out legally. in Pro rules, he technically has to have 2 in, but this is rarely enforced.

No. He says he posts to create "discussion". He thinks he's teaching.

The position by the original poster is that this may be a balk. It is not, in any code, a balk.

The first instance would be a balk only if both feet were in foul territory. In the second instance , the runner would be out if the part of him over fair territory was hit by a hit ball. If he was hit in foul territory then it would be a foul ball.

Oh, my God. Please read the rule and the Penalty.

If you have a new rule book, you'll see:

4.03 When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.

(a)The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher’s box until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

PENALTY: Balk

You will then note that no penalty is listed for the other sections of 4.03


The penalty does not apply to fielders with one or two feet in foul territory. It doesn't apply to fielder pulling up a lawn chair and eating a sandwich in foul territory. The penalty of a balk applies ONLY to paragraph (a).

Garth at one time this was ruled a balk but later changed.

Here's a little history FWIW

Jerry Remy of the BOSOX will be forever remembered in the umpiring community. Jerry did something during a game that baffled the umpires, and sparked a controversy that led to a ruling still in effect to this day in baseball everywhere.

During a game in the early 80's, with F1 on the mound and in contact with the rubber, Jerry entered foul territory to back-up an appeal attempt at first base.

Now, the umpiring crew that day knew what Jerry had done was illegal. At the start of play all fielders other than F2 are required to be on fair territory. Jerry was clearly on foul territory. But what the umpires didn't know was exactly how to penalize it. With no other feasible option, the umpires declared a balk.

That ruling rocked the umpiring world. They essentially created a new rule right there on the spot. It caused a grumbling at the highest levels of baseball officiating. Eventually the Director of Baseball Umpire Development at the time, the late Barney Deary, issued a ruling on the play. He declared that any play occurring with a fielder (other than the catcher) on foul territory should be nullified. It should not be ruled a balk.

The idea of nullifying play with less than 8 fielders in fair territory created one of the only, "do-overs," in baseball rules. And it was all because of Jerry Remy.

Pete Booth

I have often wanted to work the bases in this fashion, especially on extremely hot days. Except I would set up my lawn chair in between B and C. I would dress in appropriate attire, including Broc-a-brella w/double beer holders.:)

i've often thought of becoming a golf club...

I once served on a three-umpire team whose job was to cover one field throughout a SP softball tournament. Teams from all over the northeast. It was autumn, and the fences had been taken down and replaced by a chalk line 300 feet from the plate, so we rotated from plate to bases to "fence." The fence ump's job was to sit in a lawn chair outside the center field chalk line, and on long drives get up and check out whether the fielder stepped over the line, whether the ball traveled over the line, whether the ball hit the fielder's glove and then went over the line, and so on.

So there actually are games you umpire from a lawn chair.

To correctly relate historical fact, that statement should read:

"Garth, at one time this was incorrectly ruled a balk by an umpring crew, only to be later corrected by their supervisor."

There has never been a rule that penalized this action as a balk, just a terrible decision similar to the one being suggested in this thread.

When I went to umpire school (years ago) had a similar situation on the first rules quiz we were given. I missed it, because the classroom instructor had told us in earlier in class that we should, for the most part, "screw the team who screwed up". The test question had to do with "Team A has 8 defensive players on the field, and the leadoff batter for Team B hits a homerun. Then it's noticed Team A was missing a left fielder. Ruling?" I figured "screw the team who screwed up", so I counted the run. Of course the rule book said "...the defensive team must have 9 men on the field". It was one of only two test questions I missed out of 234. Probably cost me a shot at the Bigs...;)

JJ

Or maybe not. However, isn't the rule enforced as such? This generally applies to F3, but also to any player. If one team complains that a fielder other than the catcher has a foot in foul territory, it is enforced for the remainder of the game for both teams. The next player who fails to heed such warning is ejected.

I don't have rule book to reference, so correct me if I'm wrong.

I often thought of becoming a violin

and I think it is a balk too The rule says it's a balk.... we can't just act like gods out there we have to follow the rules! Even if we don't agree with them... that's just the way it is!!!!!!

O YA I SEE:

Apparently you don't.

The rule does NOT say it is a balk. The rule penalizes only paragraph (a) with a balk. Paragraphs (b) and (c) are NOT penalized with a balk.

RIF

4.03 When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.

(a)The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher’s box until the ball leaves the pitcher’s hand.

PENALTY: Balk

I read this as a Balk is the penalty!!!!! for all of 4.03 that is what I will call in my games!!!

If it's not a balk then what is it? what is going to make them stop breaking the rule every rule has a consequence it has to or else it is a moot rule!!!!

the penalty fro failing to comply is an ejection. See 9.01 something (or maybe it's 9.02 or 9.03).

In any event, the play originally described is not a balk as has been explained over and over in this and other threads.

Well a blak is better then getting an ejection? Wow I like the balk better that could cost them a run if they don't stop breaking the rules!

Throw them out that is a bit harsh dont you think?

I doubt that it's ever happened. If you tell a player to stay in fair territory, he (generally) will.

your new at this, aint ya? or is this yet another troll come to annoy??

In a close game with a runner on third, a balk's a bit harsh, don't you think?

Ya but what if he keeps forgetting like at first base? When he holds a runner on. I mean that is a balk if the pitcher throws over to first and he is in foul ground right?

Bob:

After reading his recent flurry of posts in a number of threads, I think it's become evident that we've been had.

"O ya I see" is a troll.

he has a certian great white north air about his posts.......

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.

Now thats funny!!!!