Another Balk Question.........

[UmpJM]

mbyron,

Originally Posted by mbyron

Have you actually called this in a game? Ordinarily I have no problem with FED being different from OBR, since I can usually figure out a FED-specific rationale for the rule. This one makes no sense to me.

It's the classic FED "dumb umpire" rationale. As in, it would be too complicated for many of our umpires to discern whether the runner was feinting or making a legitimate attempt, so we will make it a moot point.

Makes me proud to wear my IHSA patch on my shirt.

JM

[jdmara]

Maybe I'm missing something (or am doing something wrong) but with a man only on first, (as the base umpire in a 2-man system) I'm in B. I have my feet parallel with the plate, head pointed towards the pitcher, and watching intently for illegal actions. I would never see a runner make a two step faint towards second because I'm pivoting with the throw. Am I doing something wrong?

-Josh

[JJ]

Originally Posted by jdmara

I would never see a runner make a two step faint towards second
-Josh

My sister used to faint when she'd get a shot in grade school. The only time I ever did was when I got a blood test to get married, and I was never sure if that was because of the needle or the getting married...

JJ

Sorry, I couldn't resist....

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Maybe I'm missing something (or am doing something wrong) but with a man only on first, (as the base umpire in a 2-man system) I'm in B. I have my feet parallel with the plate, head pointed towards the pitcher, and watching intently for illegal actions. I would never see a runner make a two step faint towards second because I'm pivoting with the throw. Am I doing something wrong?

-Josh

I was on the stick when I made this decision. Although I still think you'd be able to hear the runner moving behind you in you were in B.


Tim.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

I was on the stick when I made this decision. Although I still think you'd be able to hear the runner moving behind you in you were in B.


Tim.

I know what you're saying Tim. I was, honestly, making sure I was positioning myself correctly. I thought maybe I was loosing my mind with all of this flooding around here I'm feeling a little claustrophobic.

I might hear him do a little shuffle but I don't know if I would call anything "I don't see". The infielder could have made the commotion. But I understand the situation.

-Josh

[soundedlikeastrike]

A balk is a shared call. HP umpire would have this easily.
If not what's he doing back there? If in B, you have too watch F1 all the way. If his turn to 2nd is smooth and continous first off, then you'd have to judge at that point was R1 going or faking, seems way to late to me. You'd have an opinion, but, PU would and should have this.

[UmpJM]

In regard to whom has the best chance of seeing what is necessary to make this call, I would agree with Tim, Josh, and SLAS that it is most likely the PU and it is unlikely that the BU will have anywhere near as good a view.

But, on to Tim's original question.

Which, if I understand it correctly, is:

"How do you judge whether the runner feinted, or made an attempt that legalizes the F1's move to the unoccupied base?"

On another board, a very knowledgeable umpire suggested the rule of thumb, "More than halfway to the advance base" (I'm paraphrasing) in order to legitimize the move.

For a professional game (or probably even "good" college ball), that strikes me as an appropriate rule of thumb. As the age and skill level of the players decreases, I think it is appropriate to hold the pitcher to a lesser standard. Not because we "change the rules" for younger players, because the rules "mean" different things at different levels. I mean, does anyone call the same strike zone in a HS Varsity game that he does in a Frosh "summer" game?

What constitutes a "feint" in an MLB game is a very different thing than what constitutes a "feint" in a HS JV game.

Although we all complain about the "ambiguity" in the text of the rules, sometimes I think the rule makers were geniuses or, perhaps, idiot savants.

Anyway, as described, I would say that Tim's "no-call" was a proper application of the letter and intent of the rule - in the context of that game. Probably HTBT.

JMO.

JM

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

On another board, a very knowledgeable umpire suggested the rule of thumb, "More than halfway to the advance base" (I'm paraphrasing) in order to legitimize the move.

For a professional game (or probably even "good" college ball), that strikes me as an appropriate rule of thumb.

At one time, long ago, that was the interpretation used by MLB. however, it has since been officially thrown into the trash heap to which it belongs.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

At one time, long ago, that was the interpretation used by MLB. however, it has since been officially thrown into the trash heap to which it belongs.

Okay, someone has to ask...what is the correct interpretation of how to judge a "feint?" You seem to have some secret knowledge about the subject, so what gives, Sam?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

A balk is a shared call. HP umpire would have this easily.
If not what's he doing back there? If in B, you have too watch F1 all the way. If his turn to 2nd is smooth and continous first off, then you'd have to judge at that point was R1 going or faking, seems way to late to me. You'd have an opinion, but, PU would and should have this.

Tim mentioned earlier that when you're in B you'd probable hear something going on behind you, which is true, but I'm not counting footsteps and I'm certainly not turning to look. And yes, a balk is a shared call but when I'm behind the plate I'm not looking at R1.