But it isn't as nit-picky
 

As some have said - in my humble opinion. There really is a dis-advantage to the runner in straddling the rubber and taking signs. Notice I said dis-advantage and not deception. I think it is a balk - most pitchers from high school and higher do it to add some deception - it is not accidental - they've been coached to do it. As long as they don't look in for a sign while doing it I think we are at a fair balance. If the runner is picked off before the pitcher looks in - hey - he's fair game - he should have known better. Once the pitcher looks in and takes a sign - the runner is getting his full lead based on that. Most base coaches are telling the runner when the pitcher is on or off the rubber. That lets the runner know when to get his full lead.

Bottom line - I'll warn, then call balk.

Hmmm,
 

"Bottom line - I'll warn, then call balk."

Please remind your assigner to not schedule us together.

I already know enough OOOs.

Tee

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Balk? Please give rule reference for your
right to call it a balk,as I cannot seem to
find it.

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Buy a rule book. Save some thinking. Apparently it hurts your head.

You've been told reality by a number of posters. This reminds me of a Dorothy Parker-ism: "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Disadvantage to the runner ??

Let's see, so anything that as an umpire I see creates a disadvantage for the runner I need to "make up" a rule to make that fair?

Not only does that make no sense, but to play your game, how in the world is this an advantage for the pitcher?

Or maybe you're playing a different game or something ...

Umpires need to umpire, nothing else.

Thanks
David

Re: But it isn't as nit-picky
 

Is it just me, or is this contradictory? And
what does when the runner gets his lead have to
do with calling a balk?

I don't think it's contradictory. Runners will not take up their full lead until the pitcher engages the rubber because they know the pitcher has more options available to him in his pick off attempt.

The point he's missing is that the runner bears the burden of knowing when the pitcher actually engages the rubber if the pitcher attempts a pick off. There's no way to balk the pitcher for being off the rubber unless he:

A: Steps quickly to the rubber and delivers the pitch.

B: Stands astride the rubber without the ball.

c: Makes a motion naturally associated with the pitch before he's engaged the rubber.

The point is that until he quick pitches, he's not committed an infraction.

Tim.

i'm impressed jenkins...i did not realize that that was the definition. Thanks

alex

I come back after a self-imposed 2 week hiatus and find the board is back to discussing actual issues. Fantastic.

This one is pretty cut and dried, however, and I'm surprised at the 2 or 3 hold outs that continue to insist that they will balk this when the rules clearly separate this action from those listed as a balk.

Don't you folks think that if the rulemakers intended this to be a balk, it would be INCLUDED in 8.05? It's not. It's not ON PURPOSE. Because it's NOT A BALK. It's not even illegal unless the pitcher subsequently creates an ILLEGAL disadvantage by then quick-pitching. VERY simple. Stop guessing and read the book.

And while all of this is true, the FED insists that it IS a balk, by lumping every violation of 6-1-1 into a single penalty of either ball or balk, depending on whether or not there are runners on base.

I have never enforced this technicality, nor do I think I ever would. Like it has been said already, just tell the pitcher to get on the rubber when taking his signs. I'm not about to stand out there all day calling ticky-tack, technical balks anyway.

IMO, this is another example of over-zealous rule writers that seem to make up the FED rules committee.

The difference in the FED rule has nothing to do with zealousness, either over or under.

The Fed rule difference has to due with FED's lack of confidence in the training, consistency and quality of its umpires.

Garth,

And you got this from......?

Multiple (at least 4) Fed Clinicians (including a state head clinician) a former member of the FED rules committee and Carl Childress.

And, you got the reason as "excessive or unwarranted passion for a cause" from.....?

I got it from seeing these folks butcher baseball rules every year for that last 19 years of working high school baseball, and every year saying "WTF did they make this or that stupid rule for?"

Can you really tell me with a straight face that you think some rules, like this one, make sense? Can you tell me what practical purpose killing the ball immediately on a balk serves? How about the rule that they almost fixed (half way) where the pitcher couldn't turn his shoulder when on the rubber? That was on the books for years, and what purpose did it serve? I could never make sense out it, and neither could my peers. There are so many more that I won't take the time to list, but they also make little sense.

There are obvious safety rules built in, which MAY be considered practical, but screwing with certain playing rules has always mystified me.

Hmmmm,
 

Steve:

While you can have whatever opinion you want (and state) about Federation Rules makers I would suggest you learn first about how high school rules are written.

Over the past 15 years 92% of all new rulings were requested by coaches. 3% of the new rules were requested by high school administrators. The remaining 5% of the rules were brought to committee by a varying number of peoples.

It appears to me that Garth's original point was related to an opinion about one of the four "self admitted" reasons FED has for making rules.

"#4 -- Rules and mechanics to help untrained umpires by eliminating judgment and complicated rotations of mechanics."

I used to call this section "dumb umpire rules."

Tee