First basemans feet

[bigN]

Must the first baseman have both feet in fair territory during all play? How should this be enforced? Warning to player without appeal. or only after opposing team appeal.

[Matt S.]

I will only call the "fielder's balk" if it gives the 1st baseman an advantage. If he clearly has both feet well foul, and the pitcher attempts a pick off to first, I'll call the balk. Same goes for a pop foul that the 1st baseman has a play on-but again, only with a distinct advantage gained.

[Mike M]

Fielder's balk? I know a pitch can balk as well as catcher can create a balk. But a fielder? If a fielder is not correctly position in the field of play, the umpire should stop play and make sure all fielders are correctly positioned. If I am mistaken could you supply the rules reference?

[TwoBits]

OBR 4.03: When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be in fair teritory. Penalty: Balk.

FED 1-1-3: At the time of the pitch, all fielders shall be on fair ground except the catcher who shall be in the catcher's box. A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching fair ground. Penalty: Illegal pitch (which would be a balk with runners on base, or a ball awarded to the batter withouth runners on base).

I'd call it the same in both rules. Only one foot needed to be in fair territory, and remember that the base line IS fair territory.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Matt S.
I will only call the "fielder's balk" if it gives the 1st baseman an advantage. If he clearly has both feet well foul, and the pitcher attempts a pick off to first, I'll call the balk. Same goes for a pop foul that the 1st baseman has a play on-but again, only with a distinct advantage gained.

On the pick-off, it's never a balk, under any code.

FED: If it's a PITCH with a fieder in foul territory, illegal pitch / balk. If it's a PLAY, legal.

NCAA: Play (including batted ball after a pitch) is nullified if defense benefits. Pitch that's unbatted stands.

OBR: Play or pitch is nullified.

[night_ninja]

Not sure how OBR or NCAA rule is stated, but if it's stated as you say it is, then a pick-off attempt would be nullified as it is a play. A play is defined as "a unit of action which begins when a pitcher has the ball in his possession in pitching position and ends when ball becomes dead or pitcher again holds the ball while iin pitching position"

[Edited by night_ninja on Apr 25th, 2002 at 11:28 AM]

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by night_ninja
Not sure how OBR or NCAA rule is stated, but if it's stated as you say it is, then a pick-off attempt would be nullified as it is a play. A play is defined as "a unit of actoin which begins when a pitcher has the ball in his possession in pitching position and ends when ball becomes dead or pitcher again holds the ball while iin pitching position"

That's the FED definition, so I'll assume you're asking about FED rules.

I agree -- the pick-off is a play. A play with a fielder(s) in foul territory is not nullified in FED. It's allowed. See 1.1.3, especially part (a).

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by TwoBits
OBR 4.03: When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be in fair teritory. Penalty: Balk.

Well, now, that's just wrong. You cut out the actual rule that has a balk as the penalty!

4.03 - When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.

(a) The catcher shall station himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls, the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. PENALTY: Balk.

A balk is the penalty for 4.03(a), not 4.03 in general. And that agrees with 8.05(l):

8.05 - If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when -

(l) The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher's box;

And, finally, such a balk is ignored in today's baseball. 4.03(a) and 8.05(l) are old holdovers from the Dead Ball Era, when the rulesmakers were doing everything they could think of to produce offense in the game. The catcher's box was considerably larger back then as well. An intentional pass is now considered good strategy. Any modern OBR umpire worth his salt would ignore 4.03(a) and 8.05(l). Strike them from your book, and just tell a catcher to stay in his box longer if he's ridiculously outside of it.

There was one example of the, "fielder's balk," in Major League Baseball that I know of. It happened in the 80's when Red Sox second sacker Jerry Remy, with a runner on third, entered foul territory to back up an appeal attempt at first base. The umpires called a balk. That effectively nullified Boston's appeal.

Director of Baseball Umpire Development at the time, the late Barney Deary, issued a ruling following that play. He basically said that anytime play is initiated while the defense has less than 8 players in fair territory, the play is nullified.

Repeat after me: Only pitchers can balk. Only pitchers can balk. Only pitchers can balk . . .

[Marty Rogers]

Jim: I like your explaination.
Last week I was UIC for a varsity
(more like advanced JV) HS game.
The visitors decided to intentionally
walk the batter. A father/grandfather?
was SCREAMING LIKE A WILD BANCHEE
that F2 was committing catcher's balk.
I told the kid to stay in the box (he
had no idea what I meant). Finally on
the 4th pitch he did it right. I totally
ignored the "fan." No way was I going to
call catcher's balk.

Believe it or not, the coach came over and
told me the catcher was balking! Before
that event, he didn't even know what it was.
I just told him I know what catcher's balk is.

My partner told me he hasn't seen a
catcher's balk called in 30 years HS ball.

[Bfair]

Good advice, Jim............

Further, JEA adds:

Customs and Usage: First basemen often position one foot in foul territory while holding a runner on first base. On the Major League level, this is acceptable and not considered a violation of the rule. The National Association Leagues' umpires are instructed to permit this unless a complaint is raised. If so, they are told to enforce the rule as written for both teams (similar to the "coach being out of the box" type situation).

Defensive players are not allowed to be in foul territory to back-up appeal plays or pitches. No penalty is provided. [my emphasis] The umpire simply does not allow play while this condition exists. If a player refuses to comply, he should be ejected.

Fed requires one foot fair, OBR requires 2 feet fair.
From the NAPBL:

1.15 FIRST BASEMAN PLAYING IN FOUL TERRITORY
Do not insist on the first baseman playing with both feet in fair territory unless the offensive team protests. [my emphasis] If they do, you must enforce the rule as written, but make sure it is enforced for both teams.

Don't go booger pickin' as an umpire........
If the teams do it, they're pickin' their own boogers too....


Just my opinion,

Freix

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Jim Porter
[i][QUOTE][i]Originally posted by TwoBits



Any modern OBR umpire worth his salt would ignore 4.03(a) and 8.05(l). Strike them from your book, and just tell a catcher to stay in his box longer if he's ridiculously outside of it.

Jim if memory serves, while not on an intentioanl walk, wasn't there controversy (can't remember exactly what happened), over the way Havy Lopez of the Braves was catching? Didn't Cox get ejecetd over it? Perhaps you can expand

Pete Booth

[night_ninja]

Marty Rogers' game must not have been a Fed game has you don't have to throw any pitches for an intentional walk.

[Marty Rogers]

You're right.
Not FED in Massachusets.
But, I hear it is conimg soon.
Like 2003, probably.
Should I study "rules differences?"

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by PeteBooth

Jim if memory serves, while not on an intentioanl walk, wasn't there controversy (can't remember exactly what happened), over the way Havy Lopez of the Braves was catching? Didn't Cox get ejecetd over it? Perhaps you can expand

Pete Booth

Sure. Here's what happened.

Back during the season of 1999, the commissioner's office was making a concerted effort to get the umpires to squeeze the width of the strike zone. They felt too many hitters were leaning over the plate to take away the outside pitch, then getting busted inside. They felt that led to more hit batsmen, more beanball incidents, more fights, and more ejections. For those reasons, they wanted umpires to call strikes only on pitches that passed over the plate, and end the common practice of giving a ball width or two (or three) off the the outside corner. (It was for those same reasons that the commissioner's office mandated the high strike two years later)

At the time, the Braves' catchers had a well-known reputation for setting up outside the catcher's box. Many teams complained to the commissioner's office that umpires would call strikes on outside pitches because the Braves' catchers, set up wide of the plate, didn't have to move their mitts much at all to glove those outside pitches.

The whole issue began to heat up on Wednesday, May 26 1999 when the Braves played at Milwaukee. In the first inning, plate umpire Angel Hernandez stopped the game just as pitcher Bruce Chen initiated his delivery to warn Braves' catcher Javier Lopez to stay within the lines of the catcher's box.

"Lopez got the warning because Angel said he was setting up eight inches to a foot outside every time," crew chief Randy Marsh was quoted as saying after the game. Inexplicably, Marsh and Joe West both worked the plate for the first two games of that series and said nothing to the Braves' catchers. Some sources close to the incident reported that Brewers manager Phil Garner put that bug in Hernandez's ear.

Braves' manager Bobby Cox went ballistic. After probably suggesting that Angel Hernandez was sexually insane, he told Hernandez that, if he was going to be so picky, he should make sure every batter is entirely within the lines of the batter's box. Major League hitters commonly take their stances with their back foot over the back line of the box. Cox was ejected.

Fast forward to June 23, 2000 when the Brewers were visiting Hot-lanta. This time it was Milwaukee's new manager Davey Lopes who complained to plate umpire Ed Rapuano about Javy Lopez's position. The following night, on June 24, plate umpire John Shulock called a balk on the Braves' backup catcher Fernando Lunar for setting up outside the lines of the catcher's box.

Whether the crew decided to call the balk on their own, or whether they received guidance from the commissioner's office following the game on the 23rd, is unclear. What is clear is that Shulock had created a new rule just for the Braves' catcher.

The very next day, the Braves' flagship television station, TBS, aired video showing that the Braves had been drawing their catcher's boxes larger than the rules allow. The box was 4 to 5 inches smaller on the 24th - - the night the balk was called - - than on the 23rd. Since the Brewers complained about Lopez's position on the 23rd, and fearing that the catcher's box would be measured by the umpires on the 24th, the Braves went back to the dimensions allowed by rule.

That caused yet another storm of controversy. And the Braves responded by banning four TBS broadcasters from the team's chartered flights. The Braves quickly reversed their decision the very next day, but the buzz was already flying around baseball.

The controversy flared up again on July 22, 2000. This time it was good ol' Bobby Valentine, manager of the Mets, who complained to plate umpire Andrew Fletcher that the Braves' backup catcher Paul Bako was out of the box. Interestingly enough, Ed Rapuano - - the only umpire common to both 2000 incidents - - was working first base, and standing in for Jim McKean as the Crew Chief of a very young crew. It was probably a test for Rapuano.

Ralph Nelson, Vice President in charge of umpires, did his part to quash the controversy. He sent memos to the umpires asking them not to scrutinize any one team. He sent memos to the teams regarding the issue. He also fielded questions from the media. Although he would not publically admit that there was no rule to support Shulock's decision, he did say that the rules involved would be examined, and changes made for the 2001 season.

Needless to say, there weren't any catcher's balks during the 2001 season.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Marty Rogers
You're right.
Not FED in Massachusets.
But, I hear it is conimg soon.
Like 2003, probably.
Should I study "rules differences?"

No FED where I live in Rhode Island, either. The only difference is that it'll be a cold day in hell before we'll use FED rules. I think our umpires would strike if the Rhode Island Interscholastic League instituted FED rules. We're quite proud of our tradition, the umpires have a terrific rapport with the coaches, there is no pressing need to change, and we have a sensational training program for new Varsity umpire candidates. Our local rules are adequate to address safety concerns as well.

Just some trivia - besides Massachusetts and Rhode Island, there is only one other state that does not use FED rules for high school baseball. That would be Wyoming. They don't have high school baseball.