How long to stop?

[danreeves1973]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

danreeves,

From JEA:



So, the correct response to the coach is, "Not since 1964, Skip."

JM

Very interesting, thanks for that information. Thought I was right not balking, and glad I now know the history behind the rule.

[Klokard]

This is a great subject for debate. I have never been one to look to pick boogers like some umpires. Whether on dish or bases all I do is go through in my mind, rubber, set, delivery. I expect more than just a change of direction but I see so many umpires that want alot more of a set. I don't call alot of balks for the set unless it is obvious. Count to 2 very fast.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Klokard

I have never been one to look to pick boogers like some umpires. Whether on dish or bases all I do is go through in my mind, rubber, set, delivery. I expect more than just a change of direction but I see so many umpires that want alot more of a set. I don't call alot of balks for the set unless it is obvious. Count to 2 very fast.

I agree with everything here except the last bit. Why not just enforce the rule as written? If you've got no "discernible stop," it's a balk, otherwise let it go. As usual, taking short cuts with the rules will get you in trouble at some point (for example, telling a knowledgeable coach: "see, coach, I count to 2 very fast, and if he starts his motion before that...").

[TussAgee11]

Why are we debating the word "stop"?

A stop is when there is no motion over any interval of time (it can be .000001 theoretically).

So, if at some point everything stops moving, he has met the requirements of the rule.

Its really simple... don't over think it.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

Why are we debating the word "stop"?

A stop is when there is no motion over any interval of time (it can be .000001 theoretically).

So, if at some point everything stops moving, he has met the requirements of the rule.

Its really simple... don't over think it.

Absolutely.

If you can tell he stopped, he did. If you can't tell he stopped, he didn't.

[justanotherblue]

As long as his hands have stopped before his lower body begins, he has stopped for all intense and purpose of the rule.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

As long as his hands have stopped before his lower body begins, he has stopped for all intense and purpose of the rule.

No, he hasn't.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

As long as his hands have stopped before his lower body begins, he has stopped for all intense and purpose of the rule.

First off, those are some pretty serious purposes you must be talking about

Secondly, I disagree completely. You would not balk a kid if his hands stopped at his chest, but his shoulders kept turning, and then the lower body started?

Making up rules... catches up with you pretty quick.

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

As long as his hands have stopped before his lower body begins, he has stopped for all intense and purpose of the rule.

Explain then how this is fully meeting the rule...

"The pitcher, following his stretch, must (a) hold the ball in both hands in front of his body and (b) come to a complete stop." (8.01b, OBR)

Where in that does it say all that has to stop are his hands? He can stop his hands, then waggle his hips, then stop again, then have his lower body begin?

Perhaps you can clear up what you mean.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with everything here except the last bit. Why not just enforce the rule as written? If you've got no "discernible stop," it's a balk, otherwise let it go. As usual, taking short cuts with the rules will get you in trouble at some point (for example, telling a knowledgeable coach: "see, coach, I count to 2 very fast, and if he starts his motion before that...").

There is nothing in the rules that mentions a discernable stop. They tried to add this in the late 80s, but it didn't last long. Bob Davidson and others were calling too many balks for not stopping, so they took the "discernable" part out of the language of the interpretation, leaving only "complete stop."