The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 11:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Newburgh NY
Posts: 1,822
Quote:
Quote:
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.
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
__________________
Peter M. Booth
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 11:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 11:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
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).
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 08:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,729
Well . . .

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,
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 08:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

Tim, not sure where this, any help?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 09:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,057
Send a message via Yahoo to UmpJM
Cool

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 ...

Quote:
(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
__________________
Finally, be courteous, impartial and firm, and so compel respect from all.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 09:31pm
DG DG is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,022
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 11:54pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,194
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 09:38am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 09:43am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
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

Last edited by JJ; Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:46am.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 09:45am
JJ JJ is offline
Veteran College Umpire
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: IN
Posts: 1,122
...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...
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Jan 11, 2008, 10:00am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Men of few words? just another ref Basketball 3 Fri Nov 30, 2007 02:07pm
NFL Network: In Their Own Words OverAndBack Football 4 Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:40am
short words RUBIERA Basketball 10 Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1