MLB umpire says that you can balk with a dead ball!

[Tim C]

Their answer to me was a copy of Richard10's.

Sameoh, sameoh.

[Boone]

okay, Mr. Boone's recently silence on the matter means he's coming around.

Can I not at least eject someone for making a travesty of the game? Pleeeease???

[Jerry]

Wow! After reading every darn one of these replies, I'm siding with Porter. There's nothing that says you can't call THAT balk while the ball is dead. In fact, there's some evidence that you should call it a balk regardless of the status of the ball.

My logic, as faulty as it may be, says that F1, by stepping onto the rubber is indicating to everyone (including the PU) that he has the ball in hand and ready to pitch. F1 legally can have the baseball "hidden" in his glove at that time; there's no requirement to hold it in his bare hand. So . . . PU certainly has no obligation to tell F1 "Show me the ball" before he yells "Play". Now the rule becomes very specific, "The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on or astride the pitcher's plate . . . ."

That's also the reason you don't see this play happen in the big leagues . . . the pitchers know what the penalty will be ahead of time! If you're on the plate without the ball, you're gonna be called for a balk and the runner is gonna get a base. That's all there is to it. No technicalities involved whatsoever.

I also suspect that's why all the codes are silent regarding any interpretation of that scenario. It should speak for itself. Anytime a pitcher intentionally tries to deceive a runner . . . in this case by making him think the ball is alive and in play . . . and causes him to "lead off" the base because his (F1's) foot is engaged . . . it's a balk. In fact, OBR says as much . . . "Straddling the pitcher's rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk". No mention as to whether the ball is alive or dead.

Play Ball!

Jerry

P.S. I'm gonna start calling it all the time now.

[GarthB]

What's really interesting Tee is that the current general opinion is that Rick Roder is writing the emails for WUA.

You remember Rick...he's a co-author of a book that someone claimed supported the position of calling a deadball balk. Funny, I couldn't find any reference to it in my copy.

Anyway, as they say, the truth always comes out.

[GarthB]

Jerry:

The rule book doesn't say the umpire can't beat the catcher senseless for miss a pitch that hits him. But I wouldn't recommend it. In reality the rule book is slim on information in may areas. That's why we look at professional practice, tradition and common sense.

Look at it this way. No runner can advance during a dead ball, right? The pitcher can't throw to first to put out a runner leading off during a dead ball, right?

Okay, then how is a pitcher deceiving a runner who is not in danger of being put out and couldn't advance if he wanted to? Common sense. AS other's have noted, the only one decieved was the umpire, and there nothing about calling a balk on that in the rule book, is there?

But, hey if you want to call it all the time, despite the pro umpires opinion that it can't be called, feel free. There are those who enjoy being contrary. But as I asked another poster, please, if you ever get to do high level games or play-offs, let me know where you'll be working. The plane fare will be worth seeing that call made.

[STEVED21]

Garth,

I agree. This seems all so simple to me. The ball is dead. The defence has deceived everyone, PU BU fans players coaches. However, no one is in jeopardy. R1 cannot be out. But he has been deceived. This requires some sort of penalty. We know it's not a balk. So lets take insatty's comparison to football one step further.

1. Pitcher gets 2 minutes for unsportsmanlike conduct. Hey, they do it in hockey.

2. Give the batter a "free throw". Let him hit the ball off a tee. Basketball.

3. Penalize the defence 5 yds. The bases move closer for the remainder of the inning.

Ridiculous? Of course. So is calling a balk when a runner can't be put out, batter can't hit the ball, or pitcher pitch the ball. The ball is DEAD. Period.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Jerry
Wow! After reading every darn one of these replies, I'm siding with Porter. There's nothing that says you can't call THAT balk while the ball is dead. In fact, there's some evidence that you should call it a balk regardless of the status of the ball.

IF the WUA posts didn't settle this, Jerry's post should.

Having Jerry on one side is a virtual guarantee that the other side is correct.

[Jim Porter]

There were no bat restrictions on that league last season, far as I know.

There were. It's just it wasn't much. -5

Now, the league I worked in MetroWest Massachusetts used wooden bats last year. I think I saw one home run the entire season. I like wood bats, but at the same time, I don't think the average player is skilled enough to use them. The game suffers TOO much. Some kind of middle ground must be reached.

Everyone in our league is very happy with the switch to wooden bats. Of course there aren't as many homers, but I've seen my fair share. But what all the players are saying is that they're happy it has leveled the competition considerably. There existed a great divide between the haves and havenots, and it mostly boiled down to pitching. The wooden bat has proven to be the great equalizer. A mediocre pitcher from last year is suddenly above average.

The only complaint, and it's a big one, is with the cost of playing. Wooden bats are expensive, going for between $40 and $60. The cheaper they are, though, the more easily they break. The Masters Division (48+) loves the wooden bats. The 38's and over grumble just a little more. The 28's and over, which is the division you worked in last year with me, is spending the most money on bats and is complaining the loudest.

All in all, wooden bats have been a tremendous success. I just wonder if all our players will be helped or hindered once they go back to aluminum in Arizona.

[Jerry]

Now, now Bob. No need to get nasty. Let me respond to Garth first.

1) Runners can most certainly advance during a dead ball. Base awards and on dead ball balks!

2) A pitcher attempting a pick-off while the ball is dead is an entirely different scenario and issue. (As are Steve's football analogies.) This balk is unique from the others because of the very fact it can logically be called while the ball is dead, albeit presumably "in play".

3) It is listed specifically in the rule book as a balk and specific mention regarding the pitcher's intent in the comment section of Rule 8.

4) At least one PRO umpire's opinion was it is to be called a balk whether the ball is alive or dead.

5) The WUA is the bargaining agent for the Major League umpires, not an interpretive body.

6) The very fact there is so much discussion and diverse opinions regarding this scenario, by itself verifies the fact that this COULD be called a balk, and penalized accordingly.

Jerry

[blarson]

There was a recent WUA ruling that was then contradicted by an interview with a crew on MLB.com a week or so after I received it. After being further pointed in the right direction it also did not agree w/ a CC reported PBUC interp.

While access to the WUA is great and I applaud it, it will not be and end all. It can be a source of authoritative opinion, but one that may still be trumped by more authoritative opinion.

Also it's my guess (as well as a few others) that the WUA opinions may be coming from Roder. Definitely an authoritative source but there are times when MLB or PBUC has gone the other way of J/R or JEA in later rulings.

IMSDO,
Bob

PS - I'm in the no balk camp. lol

[Jim Porter]

Well, what do I know? I'm just a two-bit liar anyway.

[Tim C]

Before you all get lined up behind the ex-MLB umpire one should ask Peter, "how long ago did this umpire retire and what are his current qualifications/"

See I now understand the "balk group". You wouldn't agree if Dale Scott, or Gary Darling, or Ted Barrett, or Jim Evans even made the ruling.

I thought just maybe y'all would finally get the picture.

as CC sez, "Lah me!"

[Jerry]

Yeh, but ain't it fun to talk about it?

I was just thinking some more about it (the "dead ball balk").

Let's assume the ball is in play legally. (There hasn't been any reason for the ball to become dead.) If F1 steps on the rubber without the ball . . . even if R1 remains ensconced on 1B . . . you've got a balk. (We do, don't we?)

In our "dead ball" scenario, everyone on the field EXCEPT F1 and F5 . . . the two folks involved in the deceit . . .believe the ball is actually a live ball and in play, because that what PU has said.

To my way of thinking (which is often tempered by a Southern Comfort or two), if the PU, BU, R1 and all God's children believe the ball to be alive and well, it does in fact put R1 in jeopardy and that's why it should be called a balk.

Let's carry it to a stupid extreme . . . Dead Ball, F1 w/o the ball, PU calls "Play". Now F1 simulates a blindingly quick step and "throw" pick-off to F5. F5 tags R1 off the base and "voila", we've got a deceptive "Out" and no one's the wiser except F1 and F5. Everyone else is scratching their heads trying to figure out how it was done.

That's why I call it a balk.



Jerry

[GarthB]

"1) Runners can most certainly advance during a dead ball. Base awards and on dead ball balks!"

Okay, and how vulnerable are they to deception and being picked off in those situations, Jer?


"2) A pitcher attempting a pick-off while the ball is dead is an entirely different scenario and issue. (As are Steve's football analogies.) This balk is unique from the others because of the very fact it can logically be called while the ball is dead, albeit presumably "in play".

Only according to your logic. Show me a reference by a reputable source that covers the ball presumably being in play and dead at the same time. Please.


"3) It is listed specifically in the rule book as a balk and specific mention regarding the pitcher's intent in the comment section of Rule 8."

And is this the only action listed specifically as a balk in the rule book? Damn, gotta get me a new rule book.

The intent it mentions is deception, which OBVIOUSLY is applicable when the ball is alive since the runner is not vulnerable to deception or pick off when the ball is dead.

"4) At least one PRO umpire's opinion was it is to be called a balk whether the ball is alive or dead."

Let's correct that: We heard, at least third hand, that an unnamed former ML umpire thought this was a balk. Now then, let's compare that to current working umpires who believe otherwise.

"5) The WUA is the bargaining agent for the Major League umpires, not an interpretive body."

Did anyone claim otherwise, Jer. I sought their opinion because while it may or may not represent ML opinion, it does represent the opinion of working umpires and very likely one of the authors of the J/R.

"6) The very fact there is so much discussion and diverse opinions regarding this scenario, by itself verifies the fact that this COULD be called a balk, and penalized accordingly."

Diversity? There are two or three amateur umpires who want to call a balk posting here, and one of them, at the beginning, based his opinion on his belief that the ball was still live. The rest, the vast majority realize that one does not call a balk during a deadball.

Additionally, difference of opinion in and of itself does not validate the differing opinion or we would still be debating that the hands are part of the bat and home plate is foul.

Sorry, Jer, you are on the short end of this one. According to Bob you are used to that.

Feel free to have the last word. I will not respond to any of your future posts on the subject. "You can lead a horse to water....."

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by GarthB
"1) Runners can most certainly advance during a dead ball. Base awards and on dead ball balks!"

Okay, and how vulnerable are they to deception and being picked off in those situations, Jer?

And, Jerry, they can only advance in those situations as a result of ACTIONS THAT HAPPENED WHILE THE BALL WAS LIVE!

"You can lead a horse to water....."

BUt, to be fair, Garth, Jerry is not a horse. He's part of a horse. I'll let you decide which part.