|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 06:21am
|
|||
|
|||
"BUt, to be fair, Garth, Jerry is not a horse. He's part of a horse. I'll let you decide which part."
Darn it, Bob. I'm only trying to keep up with my reputation as being "the worst umpire we've ever seen".  I get jealous when coaches try to give that title to someone else. Jerry 
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 08:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Why the rule?
I have been reading this ongoing debate with great interest. I don't read this a current umpire but as one who umpired in the past and is still interested in understanding the rules of the game and I have yet to form a solid opinion. I can see both sides of this issue.
I guess what would help me out a great deal is understanding WHY the rule about a pitcher straddling or standing on the rubber without the ball was put into the rulebook and why this is to be called a balk. I guess a little history of the rule would help me. My initial feeling is that the rule is there to prevent just such deception, yet I can also understand a dead ball cannot put a runner in jeopardy.
__________________
Mike Sears
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 09:16am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mike,
Quote:
Now, here's my take on this: 1. Obviously, it SHOULD be a balk if the pitcher (defense) conspires illegally to create an out. Jim Porter is 100% right. 2. Obviously, it AIN'T a balk. It's black letter law, plain as the nose on Durante's face. Garth Benham is 100% right. I must admit that in my youth (the diary shows I was 20), I called a balk during a dead ball because of the illegal hidden ball trick. Nobody said a word. That's because even then, I was a noted rules expert. OR: More likely, I was a noted a$$hole, famous for ejecting at the drop of a word. Either way, quiet reigned at that Ganado, TX, 13u game. (There was no USSSA then, but the age is right anyway.)
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 11:01am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Papa C: 1. Obviously, it SHOULD be a balk if the pitcher (defense) conspires illegally to create an out. Jim Porter is 100% right.
2. Obviously, it AIN'T a balk. It's black letter law, plain as the nose on Durante's face. Garth Benham is 100% right. I don't recall the words "should be" ever entering the discussion. If they had, this thread would be only a page long. No, the word used was "IS." And that is 100% wrong. (Unless of course we need to debate what the meaning of the word, is, is.)
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 11:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mike,
Quote:
So I am still not 100% certain. I think understanding the "why" of the rule would help. Anyone know the history of the rule? We often speak about spirit and intent. What is the spirt and intent of the rule?
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 11:17am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mike:
According to the JEA this provision was added in 1897 to avoid the hidden ball trick and to stop the practed of alluring the baserunner into running thinking the pitcher has committed to the plate. All historical notes and examples of its application given are during a live ball situation. Nothing in the rule violates the conditions of a deadball ball as set forth in Rule 5
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 12:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Sounds more and more to me like a "don't do that" type of thing.
|
|
Thu Aug 08, 2002, 03:34pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
A definitive answer to this question will elude us as long as we rely on the rule book and existing case book plays. Our efforts are akin to trying to resolve some complicated legal case using only the U.S. Constitution, or proving Fermat's Last Theorem with a calculator.
We need a separate case book for balks, with a couple of hundred examples and variations. Even then, we'd be asking, "How can play 45.A be a balk and not play 189.B?"
__________________
greymule More whiskey—and fresh horses for my men! Roll Tide!
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
