They were wondering about the quick hook. It was clear that coming off the mound he was saying, "F--- you, f--- you." Even for those slow-witted people that never eject anyone, that should be eaaaasy.

the announcers (shocking) are incorrect as usual. they may argue a balk if they want to, they are just subject to an ejection (like arguing anything else) if they take it too far, as is stated in the prior snip and paste from the MLBUM above. it is NOT the same as a ball/strike argument where they can't leave their position to argue by rule, which will get them dumped very quickly after being warned.

45 step, my friend

Join the few that couldn't see the step toward home on a throw to 3b from an earlier thread.

Not even close to being the same move as the one to third.

The side angle of this move shows the step to home.

thansk
David

I don't think anyone said the balk we saw in that thread was for a step toward home. The balk should have been called for the pitcher showing motion toward the plate by rotating his free foot toward the plate before he threw to third.



Tim.

Too bad it wasn't Fairchild. The other umpire in the video is Mr. Eric Cooper.

Not only that, but he also called Hernandez "stupid" and "an idiot" after the game. Not good things to say to an umpire.

Speaking as a MLB fan only... that is, I really haven't a clue whether or not the balk call was correct (think of those guys in the beer commercial from last year!), but two things:

1. It will be interesting to see what MLB does to discipline Perez for his on-field and, especially, is off-field to the media comments. He directly and publicly called the umpire a cheat.

2. The Nats have sent video to the league for a ruling on whether it was a balk. It will be interesting to see if the league throws the umpire under the bus or backs his call (or something in between).

No step balk occured in during the video betwwen times 0:01 and 0:03. Take another peek.

1. Perez was ejected. He didn't do anything to warrant further penalty.

2. I can't imagine MLB saying anything negative about the balk call, which was clearly a good call.

In MLB, the comments he made to the media regarding the umpire are grouinds for futher discipline by the league.

Maybe so. I was referring to what I saw in the video.

Perez said the following to the media after the game: To me, he is accusing Hernandez of being biased and of calling the balk to cause Perez to lose the game. As stated earlier, MLB has rules against making public comments critical of the umpires, and Perez clearly expects to at least be fined for this.

From J/R,
"MLB: a player, manager, or coach cannnot leave the dugout or his position to argue a balk called for a pitcher's failure to step to a base. Umpires are to indicate the nature of such a balk by slapping the side of their leg."

My last post on here about an umpires "percieved" lack of unbiasness and fair play (Bungee, which MLB agreed with me by the way) got me accused ah smoking something,, so hang on a minute.

K..

Though I can't see blue's leg, his arm motion looked like he slapped his leg just before he raised his hand and shook his head, in other words "that was a step balk, and we ain't talking about it". F1 talked about it, gone. That was easy.

So, if, this umpire had a history with this player, the video leads "me" to feel blue was out to get him..that is what "I saw" on the video, here's why..

For those that didn't see the "no step" balk, I'm with ya. At least from the angle of this video.
From the initial motion of F1, I saw PO all the way, (and would have balked him had he gone home for sure).
Right shoulder turns to throw to 1B as well as right hip, the step seemed okay also (more on that later), gained distance and direction. If it (FF) indeed landed in the same spot, it must have been the outter rim of his heel landing where the tip of the toe's were, cause it clearly landed closer to first.
IMO, PU begins his balk signal way to soon for a step balk (strike one). (See him coming up with the left arm before the foot plants and he's leaning towards 1B, as if he know's it's a PO also (strike two). At the onset of PU's balk signal (IMO) the FF is still in the air, so it's to early to judge "no step". And the speed of which R1 and F3 turn towards HP indicates "to me" that PU never reset. So IMO he had decided on a balk call pretty early, at least to call the "no step". The reaction of R1 getting back indicates he saw PO all the way also. The reactions of R1 and R3 looking back at the plate and not towards U1 at all indicate there was no agreement echoed by U1 (strike 2 1/2), PU took this one all the way. I know, I know, a step balk will probably be PU's call anyway, just the fact the U1 "seems" to not have seen anything gains a 1/2 strike. So he's still up, but hanging by his teeth.. Hang on....

K...

For those that saw a balk, I'm with you also. Just not for the same reason.
I didn't like the last move of the FF as it does clearly go towards home, looks like the right knee bends inward and the FF changes directions towards HP.

So, had I called "that" a balk, (I feel more of U1's call BTW) I wouldn't have called it a "step balk" rather a lack of smooth and continous motion. And would have splained that pretty quickly, "I saw you change direction in a non smooth and continous motion, that's a balk". That's that, any ejections would be welcome after that point.

Bottom line, unless we could here PU take us through this video himself it's pure speculation as to what he "really" called and why.

Ouch, I think I just got a sliver in my a-- riding the fence like that...