In 25 words . . .

[PeteBooth]

The actual choice is this:

How does one's association call it.

Example;

In FED, there is the "gorilla" balk and years ago F1 could not check a runner.

There were some associations who would not call this "technicality" a balk hence no call was made. Same with the Gorilla Balk.

Therefore the REAL answer is What is the concenses in the association you work for.

Pete Booth

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

The actual choice is this:

How does one's association call it.

Example;

In FED, there is the "gorilla" balk and years ago F1 could not check a runner.

There were some associations who would not call this "technicality" a balk hence no call was made. Same with the Gorilla Balk.

Therefore the REAL answer is What is the concenses in the association you work for.

Pete Booth

I'm not familiar with the "gorilla balk" or "check a runner" terminology. Could you enlighten me?

My association goes by what our state interpreter says, not by consensus. Until he tells us the jab step is a balk, I ain't calling it. Our meeting with the interpreter is Feb. 2. I will bring up the subject and report back here.

[dash_riprock]

If, by "gorilla balk" you meant the pitching hand dangling in front rather than at his side or behind his back, we just prevented that rather than balk it (per our interpreter).

[Tim C]

One more rules set thinks it is OK:

I received an e-mail from Jim Paranto of the NCAA today.

Jim's point is:

"Tim, think about a right handed pitcher during the "fake to third and throw to first" pickoff move. The pivot foot disengages 'forward.'

"The move you described is based along the same logic as this play. Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

"I hope this answers your question."

Regards,

[jicecone]

Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

Tim, not sure where this, any help?

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

That (i.e. 9-3b, clauses 1, 2, & 3) is an NCAA rule reference.

Unique among all rule codes I have read (or at least those that I recall), the NCAA code includes the explicit requirement that a pitcher ...

(2) Must break contact with the rubber before throwing to first, and ...

Though I am not certain, I believe that this is the "point" of the response from Mr. Paronto that Tee is relating to us.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

Tim, not sure where this, any help?

See Download Rules Book over on the left hand side.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...baseball/index

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The choices:

A. The rules don't specifically allow it, so it's a balk.
B. The rules don't specifically prohibit it, so it's not a balk.

I'll choose B.

I think this is along the best that we'll do. By strict reading, it probably *is* a balk in all codes. By common interpretation (sometimes specific, as in MLBUM), it's not.

It's not much different from the "step to teh side" in the wind-up position. THe rule said "step backwards and forwards" for years (and in some codes still might say that), but everyone allowed the step to the side. The (FED) rule finally caught up a couple of years ago.

Oh -- the 25-words or less answer: Don't be a f***ing plumber.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Tim C

. . . or less explain to me the following:

NFHS Rules
Right Handed Pitcher
R1
Outs don't matter
A night game

Pitcher uses the Greg Maddox "Jab Step" (i.e. right foot -- pivot foot -- takes a quick step towards third base and F1 turns quickly and throws to first).

Under NFHS Rules explain to me why this is not a BALK.

Regards,

I am not sure if the jab step constitutes the pivot foot disengaging the plate or not however, NFHS 6-1-3 clearly states how a pitcher is allowed to disengage the plate. Any other way is a "illegal act" , balk.

A feint to any base requires a step with the non-pivot foot NFHS 6-2-4-b.

In a night game the only way I can see it not being a balk is if the lights were not good enough for the officials to see what the pitcher did with his pivot foot.

[JJ]

Since we have it in black and white that it is NOT considered a balk in Pro, and we have it in black and white...

JJ

[JJ]

...what IS LEGAL in FED, it follows that this is NOT a balk in Pro and IS a balk in FED.

JJ

The original post did say 25 words or less...

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by JJ

...what IS LEGAL in FED, it follows that this is NOT a balk in Pro and IS a balk in FED.

JJ

The original post did say 25 words or less...

Yea but, TC set a new precedence with his last post , which then superseded his original ruling and therefore it is considered the latest interpretation.