Unaccountable censorship. Welcome to the club.

If you quote a rule number it makes you sound like a smart a$$, number 1, and also you may be off by a number or get them confused so you'll look like a moron if the coach looks it up.

You should use RULE BOOK LANGUAGE if you feel like quoting a rule number.

"Coach, since his throw was the 2nd play by an infielder, by rule, it's 2 bases from where they were when the throw left the fielder's hand."

Used rule book language and applied it to the situation. If you feel like quoting a rule number, add the optional italics portion of the quote to make it sound more definitive.

better than...

"Coach, 7.05g says blah blah blah..."

Kev,

I re-read your post and it seems like we're on the same page. I think you just misunderstood what the person you were quoting was trying to say. He was talking about rule NUMBERS and not actual rules.

I don't care if God taught him that balk move. It is still a balk.

Unsupported accusation.

I don't see any deleted posts in this thread.

There was a thread where "flowerchild" made one of his usual asinine posts. Someone responded to it. Both were deleted.

If that was mbyron and this thread, that explains it.

My post was on topic and well-reasoned. :)

Probably. But, if it quotes the deleted post, it gets deleted, too.

I never said I quote a rule number, nor would I ever quote a rule number. I said, and follow this carefully, "A quick partial quotation of the WORDING of an applicable rule has always resulted in a quick and favorable end to an argument."

That's what I said and that's what I do. And it works, and I'm never doing it to be a smart a$$, but for resolution and fair play. Why do you have to be disagreeable?

You always censor and refuse or fail to accord any poster the courtesy of simple moderation, or at least personal accountability for your censorship of their posts. No reason stated publicly, and no answer to any PM. Nothing.

Moderating a forum always causes less anger and frustration than unaccountable censorship. You should try it.

Sure. Also not moderation.

Read my retraction I posted directly below that post

Why?

IMO, there have been some persuasive posts explaining why this isn't (necessarily) a balk. Rather than just declaring that it "is still a balk", please explain why you think this is a balk.

IMHO this would be a HTBT situation to start with and both sides of this have spoken. The OP requested some one-liners to use. If this play would have been judged a balk by all of us on this board because we were all at the game and this coach came out and gave that 9 pick-offs crap, this is just a line to use on this former AAA jerkof!.
Many times a pitcher with a good move will not balk 99 times out of 100 but that 1 time he does balk(players are not infallible), and the umpire calls the balk correctly does not warrant the crap about the other 99, and that he has never been called for this before, or he was taught this move by Roger Clemens(feel free to add any other pitchers names), etc., etc. Feel free not to use this line. It may or may not be a line that could or should ever be used at any level, or it may be a line that could only be used at a certain level.

What?!?!?!

Don't really see the problem with this play. It isn't a balk. See the Evans video. If F3 is breaking toward the bag and receives the ball 5 ft away he can easily apply a tag with the next step and in doing so is making a play. What is the problem?