How long to stop?
 

Called a 13-14 boys game tonight, OBR used. I'm BU. Visiting coach politely asked (no, really) me about the home pitcher not coming to a complete stop once he came set. He tried to say they have to come to a stop for a full second. Conversation was polite, I told him I'd keep an eye on both teams for that.

My question: after looking at OBR, it says "...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."

In my situation, kid was pausing, was short pause, but IMO he did come to a complete stop everytime, there was a discernable time of no movement. Just not long enough for the coaches taste.

What are the best practises for watching for this, as in how long a stop is long enough?

Dan,

If there was a "discernible time of no movement" that it seems to me that the pitcher was coming to a complete stop. There's no set time on how long he has to stop, like a half a second or some other arbitrary measurement. It's your judgment that counts, not the coaches. If you feel he came to a complete stop and didn't simply change directions, you're correct in not calling a balk.


Tim.

There should be a pause where the hands have stopped and the leg has not started to move. How long? Well...in my judgement coach..

danreeves,

From JEA:

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

JM

Interesting, JM.
Thanks. :)

JM - are you sure you ever were a coach 'cause you're certainly not talking from the dark side anymore!:)

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

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.

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...").

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.

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.

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."

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

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.