All;

Two months ago, I wrote on this board about an umpire who called a balk on a dead ball. I followed up with a four part series in the membership section (another shameless plug for eumpire here) about the fallout from this blown call. The situation:

R2, R3, extra innings, FED rules. The defense intentionally walks the batter to load the bases. An intentianal walk in FED creates a dead ball. (For OBR purposes, let's assume that the manager now calls time and goes out to talk to his pitcher). Then, F3 sneakily keeps the ball and the pitcher mounts the rubber without the ball. The deceived plate umpire calls "play" and the deceived R1 leads off and is tagged out by F3. U1 calls a balk and the the winning run scores from third; game over; s$$$house follows.

In my four part series, I pointed out that one could not have a balk during a dead ball. Since the ball was not legally put in play, the umpire should have instructed both sides as to proper procedure, cancelled the balk, cancelled the out, and had a do-over.

Recently I have been corresponding with an eumpire member about the call. Over the weekend, he emailed me the following letter concerning a discussion that he had with a retired MLB umpire. I have deleted the MLB umpire's name as well as the name of the letter's author.

-----------------
Hi Peter,

Thought I might throw more fuel on the fire. I was showing the case to a retired major league umpire who lives here in Little Rock (name of MLB umpire deleted) and he says the play's a balk, no ifs and(s) or buts. He says the rule in 8.05 doesn't make any exceptions for whether time has been called or any other factor. Any rules I can cite back to him that you pulled your ruling from? Obviously, you probably have more important things to do, but I've got the umpiring community here absolutely divided! It's all thanks to you!

signed name deleted
--------------------

First, does anyone want to answer his question for OBR? I did all the research for FED so I'll let someone else answer this one. Now to the interesting part.

It's easy for an MLB umpire to pontificate on the rules for a situation that he will never have to face. No major league team is ever going to try such a boneheaded play. Yet, I would venture to guess that a major league umpire would be considered an authority by any protest committee even when he was blatantly wrong.

If we can have a balk with a dead ball, why not a triple, or a strikeout. By this MLB umpire's ruling, we could have a balk when the pitcher stands on the rubber with his thumb up his a$$ after letting a routine ground ball go through his legs on a comebacker.

This all demonstrates that we can only give advice on the type of ball that we actually work. That's why I don't respond to LL questions. I am not that good yet.

Peter

[Edited by His High Holiness on Aug 6th, 2002 at 07:56 AM]

HHH
 

Peter:

I am sitting here at my desk this morning having a very nice internal chuckle.

Your feelings about MLB umpires and being authoritive is exactly how I have felt for the last three years.

A "retired" umpire even makes the story more funny.

Since private sources seem to have a much better chance of communicating with "authoritive" sources these days perhaps we can start to identify THEM as to believable or not.

Balking with a "dead ball" . . . how funny.

But of course I thought the same thing when bFair said the runners lane was active even on throws from inside the diamond.

C'mon, Tee, my lane argument included play with a live ball, was in accordance with the rule as it is written, and had NO written documentation to the contrary except for one writer's opinion in his book (whereby the writer has been <u>proven</u> wrong on many of his other opinions).

While many opposed the thought regarding the running lane, not one shred of evidence existed that said the rule, as written, would be altered to NOT include throws from the middle infield. Many provided hearsay myth to the contrary that was, of course, unsupported. Some even said throws from the infield would not apply because there was no caseplay that showed it as illegal---despite the wording of the rule causing it to be illegal. Perhaps the same people wouldn't consider it unsportsmanlike conduct for a player to drop his drawers and crap on an umpire's shoes----<u>since there's no caseplay showing it as an example of unsportsmanlike conduct</u>. Hmmm....there seems to be a fallacy in the logic that an example must exist. Unfortunately, some people can't seem to comprehend written concepts but can only understand specific examples.

As for the balk, there is evidence that the defense cannot "putout" a runner during a dead ball. There is evidence that the pitcher must be on the rubber <u>with the ball</u> for the ball to be put in play. When that does not exist, how can you have a live ball? What risk was the runner in? NONE (except that an umpire might blow a call and allow the defense to put him out with a dead ball).

Keep me out of the camp that says merely because an MLU says it then it must be so. If that were case, then I guess a catcher's throw striking a BU on steal attempt would be a dead ball (Runge). There needs to be greater authoritative opinion beyond one man's opinion unless the one man is authorized as the spokesperson for the rules committee.


Just my opinion,

Freix

bFair
 

Errr Steve, I was trying to say that your research was a GOOD THING on the runners lane.

Sorry if I wrote poorly.

Peter:

Somebody should relate to the un-named (and justifiably so) retired (even more justifiably so) "Major League" umpire a quote made often on the internet.


<i>"If you don't see it in MLB, don't allow it in your games."

Author Unknown</i>

dead?
 

Why do you keep refering this as a dead ball balk? all the chickanery happened during dead ball but the balk wasn't called until the ball was put in play. Now we have a balk. Game over.

Boone,
 

You have missed the point.

The Ball cannot be back in play, legally according to the play.

Please just take a second to review.

Player arrives at the base. Safe.

Time is called. Time is out.

Player "wanders" off base. He is called out.

At no time does the ball return to the mound. Time cannot resume "Live Ball" until the pitcher is on the pither's plate and the umpire declares "Play" --

Therefore the out could NOT be recorded until the ball was put back into play -- legally.

In fact, it is impossible to do the "hindden ball trick" after a dead ball situation.

I think you jumped to a conclusion.

<b>"the chickanery happened during dead ball but the balk wasn't called until the ball was put in play."</b>


Boone:

The ball could not have LEGALLY been put in play under the cirumstances and when the umpire sees that the pitcher did not have the ball in possession when he took the rubber he has to rule the ball is still dead.

Get it?

Just calls em as I sees em
 

Here's the original post:

Then, F3 sneakily keeps the ball and the pitcher mounts the rubber without the ball. The deceived plate umpire calls "play" and the deceived R1 leads off and is tagged out by F3. U1 calls a balk and the the winning run scores from third; game over; s$$$house follows.

Boone again: I got pitcher on the rubber. I got a decieved plate umpire calling play. I got F3 tagging the runner with the ball. I've got live ball balk on the pitcher.

Why on earth are you bending over to protect the punk team that is doing a crappy trick play? Call the balk. Score the run. Watch them slink off the field and see if they ever try that crap again.

garth. The play said the plate guy was deceived. He didn't know it. GET IT?

<B>"garth. The play said the plate guy was deceived. He didn't know it. GET IT?"</b>

Yes, unfortunately I get that you do not recognize the umpire's obligation to get the play right when he discovers he put the ball in play illegally and thus the ball IS NOT IN PLAY.

It's that simple. Since the conditions did not meet the rule requirements when he "put the ball in play" the ball was NOT LEGALLY PUT IN PLAY. The ball is still dead. There, normally, cannot be a balk when the ball is dead.

Get it now?

we will continue to disagree on this one.

However. When a batter hits the ball straight down, and trickles fair, but you think it hits him and call foul. It certainly didn't meet the requirement for a foul ball but you called it anyway and it becomes so.

I'd prefer to punish the offending team rather than protect them.

Boone,

You are dragging up an ages-old debate. That is, is the ball in play whenever the umpire says, "Play," or is the ball in play only when the umpire says, "Play," and it is legal for him to do so?

The rules (OBR) require the pitcher to have possession of the ball and be in contact with the rubber in order for the plate umpire to declare, "Play!" So, if the pitcher does not have the ball, and the plate umpire erroneously says, "Play," anyway, has the ball legally been made live? Or is play still dead because the pitcher did not possess the ball?

The concensus among most seems to be that even though the umpire said, "Play," the ball could not legally be put into play so it is still dead. The umpire should correct his error. The ball was not made live legally. R1 should not be called out. No balk should be declared.

Personally, I've always believed the balk should be called, dead ball or not.


[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 6th, 2002 at 12:11 PM]

Apples and oranges. I didn't see that the ball did not hit the batter. I DID see, by way of the play, that the ball was not legally in play, and it is my obligation to observe the rules of the OBR and make sure no action takes place when the ball is dead.

If you choose to disagree, you choose to disagree with the rule book, not with me.

Punish away.

Many moons ago, I was one of the lone voices on the Internet arguing that a balk should be called in this situation. I'm glad a former MLU agrees. The pitcher's action not only deceived the runner, it deceived the umpire. No rule mandates that a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. And the very nature of the offense calls for a penalty. I've got, and always will have, a balk.

hey jim! you can stand next to me and that retired MLB guy. Now you don't have to be alone!

Let's take this play:
<ul>After a foul ball the PU has provided new ball to pitcher.
Pitcher is straddling rubber, but appears to be on the rubber to the PU---who calls play.

At the moment the PU calls play, F1 quickly turns and fires to F3 who puts tag on the runner before his return to 1B.</ul>

You are the BU...........What's your call?
Is R1 out, or do you correct PU's error of improperly putting the ball in play?


Freix

Gentleman; Gentleman; Gentleman;

One of the problems with debating plays that never occur in MLB is that you can never get a honest to God authorized opinion.

However, in this case, we have a similar situation from a real MLB game to go on. I don't remember the teams or the umpires, so I trust that someone else will fill in the details:

The side was reitred and the defense went out to take their positions. (It was in Boston, I believe. ) Due to the long wait between innings to accomodate television, the left fielder entered the bullpen to visit with the pitchers. The PU did not see that there were only eight men on the field and neither did the pitcher. The PU called "play" and the batter promply hit the ball off of the left field wall. This woke up the left fielder in the bull pen and he came running out on the field and picked up the ball as the BR pulled in to second with a double.

Ruling:

Since the PU illegally put the ball into play with only eight men on the field, the double was canceled, and we had a do over. All pitches that inning (if any) prior to the hit were canceled as well.

BTW, I don't know whether the offensive manager had to be ejected or not.

This MLB ruling indicates that if the ball is illegally put in play by the umpire, all subsequent action is nullified until the ball is LEGALLY put in play.

Peter

Jim:

Absent an unamed, retired umpire who would never had seen such a play, you will most likely remain a lone voice. I exclude Boone from your company, because he seems to think the ball is live, while you understand it is dead, but would call a balk anyway.

In the past you have been a devotee of J/R and JEA. What say they about this?

Reverse your reasoning. Show me the rule that allows the call of a balk during a dead ball and you will have convert.

GB

No, that ruling indicates that any PLAY is nullified. Except for the purposes of 7.10, a balk is <u>not</u> a play.

There's a difference between an umpire who errs by not checking to see how many players are in fair territory before declaring play live, and an umpire who is out-and-out deceived by a pitcher (using illegal tactics) into putting the ball in play. The former is the umpire's fault and requires a do-over. The latter is a balk.

Garth,

I cannot show you a rule that allows a balk during a dead ball any more than you can show me a rule that disallows a balk during a dead ball.

Not to seem offensive, but I've always considered this situation to be plain common sense. The pitcher straddled the rubber without the ball, and in doing so he deceived the runners and the umpire. I just believe that should always be a balk, live or dead.

Lonesome:

A problem with your position, Jim is that you cannot limit it to one play unless you attempt to pervert 9.01(c) You are saying that pitchers can balk during a dead ball.

Takes Friex's example. That, by your definition, would have to be called a balk. We would be limited only by our imagination. What wondrous balks we could call with the ball out of play.

I would rather be limited by rule and practice (other than Little League, of course). I have to agree with Peter. You will never see a deadball balk called by a legitimate ML umpire, and for very good reason.

GB

<b>"Not to seem offensive, but I've always considered this situation to be plain common sense. </b>

Me, too. Common sense dictates that we follow the requirments for a live ball. Common sense dictates that balks are not called during a dead ball. I'm not offended by common sense, just amused by how it is interpreted at times.

"the chickanery"

Was a chicken involved in the "chicanery"? Or maybe calling a balk on a dead ball is a chicken.... call?

Bob

Boone,
 

The balk cannot be called (deceived or not PU) because the ball was NEVER legally in play.

When the PU finds out that he FU'd by not doing his job and knowing where the ball was it is not a balk it is, in all reality, a "do over".

I do not like rewarding the "dumb" team but I think this is pretty clear (sorry Jim) that the ball was never legally in play.

IF we start an inning and do not notice that the defense does not have a right fielder (he is in the portapotty). We are directed to do a "do over" since all eight defenders and catcher where not in the prescribed postions on the field.

When the umpire declares play (illegally) we are in the exact same position.

No call, no balk, no out!

"Do Over"

Huh? Read Freix's situation again. There's no balk there. How are you misunderstanding me that I would think Freix's situation is a balk?

Fact is, this can only occur in one situation - when the pitcher straddles or makes contact with the rubber while not in possession of the ball. There's no perversion of 9.01(c). It's covered quite adequately in 8.05. It's a balk because it's a balk. It has nothing to do with live versus dead. Only the <u>play</u> is nullified because the ball was not put into play legally. The balk call remains.

Jim Porter's argument is very persuasive. Just like in football where we have dead-ball fouls, the deception described here deserves a penalty. No football official advances unless he masters dead-ball officiating. And any baseball official would penalize a player that punches a runner during a dead ball. A player or team that deceives the umpire is cheating, which is ground for ejection. An umpire, therefore, should penalize cheating, whether the ball is live or dead.

Jim, you have make an assumption that the umpires know their rules and how to perform their jobs. The rules expect that. Few rules are written based on correcting umpire errors.

So, in the instance of the a hidden ball trick during a dead ball situation, the offense should be at ZERO liability of being putout. The defense has gained NO ADVANTAGE with their deception. The ball is dead!!!

Still, the defense deceives the PU into putting the ball in play.
Now, your knowledgeable officials realize the ball did not meet the requirement of being on the rubber with the pitcher to legally put the ball in play. Would you call a balk if the centerfielder threw the ball to F6 to retire R2 leading off? What if F9 had the ball and threw it to his mistress in rightfield? Where do you draw the line, Jim, on when you consider the ball in play and not in play merely because a PU calls "play?" The rule shows the limit---the pitcher must have the ball on while on the rubber. Don't add your new limitations beyond those provided by the rules.

This ball was never in play: the offense was never at risk.
While I will strongly side with you in not giving the offending team the benefit of the doubt, <u>there is no doubt here</u>. They could not retire a runner with a dead ball.

You are attempting to penalize for your dislike of a play no differently than you advocate to penalize for Type B obstruction---despite the rule's penalty that says the umpire should "nullify" the act of the obstruction. <u>You want to penalize more than what the rules allow us to</u>, Jim, because you don't like the act. That's not good umpiring---that's making up rules as you play to meet your own standards.


Just my opinion,

Freix

What part of this rule am I missing???
5.02
After the umpire calls “Play” the ball is alive and in play and remains alive and in play until for legal cause, or at the umpire’s call of “Time” suspending play, the ball becomes dead. While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow, interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field.)

In particular:
"While the ball is dead no player may be put out".....

But what do you do....
 

....when a "live ball" is put in play when there are only eight fielders on the field? What do we do then?

A live ball requires certain things -- the umpire claiming it is a live ball is a necessary BUT NOT SUFFICIENT condition.

I can't imagine calling a balk on a dead ball. Hell, the defense/pitcher isn't required to do anything when the ball is dead. The runners have no obligation when the ball is dead, other than to return to their bases before the ball becomes alive.

There's no rule that says I can't umpire naked in the OBR, but methinks I wouldn't get through the plate conference without a problem.

Rich

Jim:

R1, Ball is batted foul. Ball is thrown to F1 who is on the grass about ten feet from the mound. After rubbing up the new ball and still on the grass, he simulates his delivery. He's off the rubber. BALK, Jim calls.

The ball is dead. There is no balk.

There is no history to call a balk during a deadball. There is no ruling to call a balk during a deadball. There is no rule to call a balk during a deadball There is no practice, outside of Little League, to call a balk during a deadball.

The ump got faked out. Shame on the ump.

Sorry if some feel the need to punish the defense for deke-ing the ump, but they do so without the sanction of the rules, tradition, history, AO or OI.

I guess "common sense" justifies it.



[Edited by GarthB on Aug 6th, 2002 at 01:57 PM]

Hmmmm...................

Do you penalize in football during a dead ball for offsides?
Do you penalize in football during a dead ball for illegal procedure?
Do you penalize in football during a dead ball for too many men on the field?

I wouldn't compare this situation to a dead ball foul of punching or kicking someone.
Those acts have ramifications with them that damage the opponent.
Other acts have no ramifications to them.

Trying to put out a runner in baseball with a dead ball
just isn't going to happen with any knowledgeable umpire.
<b>There is no possibility of damage to the opponents.</b>



Just my opinion,

Freix

insatty: <B>"A player or team that deceives the umpire is cheating, which is ground for ejection. An umpire, therefore, should penalize cheating, whether the ball is live or dead.</b>

Any umpire who falls for the hidden ball trick should be too ashamed and embarrassed to eject anyone. They didn't cheat. They screwed up in the implementation of a stupid play and faked an umpire. You feel the need to punish them for that?

Okay....I hear the offense purposely arranging a BOO during a dead ball. Amn I going to penalize them for that?

R3 tries to score on a deadball and claims he got there while the ball was live. I'm sending him back, but what penalty should I add?

I am there to see that neither side gets an advantage not intended by the rules. The rules do not call for calling a balk during a deadball. That would give the offense an advantage not intended. Simple. It's not rocket science. It's baseball and its common sense.

Yes, Freix. Offsides (encroachment in FED), illegal procedure (false start in FED and NCAA), and too many men on the field (illegal substitution in FED and NCAA) are dead-ball fouls. The analogy is inexcapable. Penalize the balk.

So, following a batting out of order situation F1 balks while attempting a pickoff at 1B. Jim Porter then upholds the defense's appeal of batting out of order <b>because a balk is not a play.</b>

I think you'd lose your protest and learn that a balk is a play.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Okay

I surrender. Either common sense is not very common or, it its other meaning, it is too "common" indeed.

<b>"Penalize the balk"</b>

By all means, Mr. insatty, at your very next opportunity, please call a balk during a dead ball. But before you do, let me know where you're calling. This would be worth the plane fare.

GB

PS Do you really believe analogies bewteen football and baseball are "inescapable"? How about basketball and hockey? NASCAR and pole vaulting? Ooh, OOh, I've got it, soccer and anything else?

One's argument is awfully weak when absurd situations are needed to prove one's point. Common sense should not need to be defended with third world situations.

Common sense dictates that if the pitcher takes the rubber without the ball with the explicit intent to deceive, it's a balk. Plain and simple. The rules do not address whether a balk can or cannot be called while play is dead. 8.05 covers it completely.

If you wanted to come up with third world scenarios, I can give you a whole bunch where play is live, the pitcher balks according to the letter of the rules, and no umpire worth his salt would make the call. But I see no need to enter into the ridiculous. Common sense does not require it.

You ought to surrender, Mr. Garth, because your missing the point. F1 mistakenly balks while the ball is dead, then you have nothing. F1 cheats while the ball is dead, then you may have something.

Sorry Jim, too late to try to rise above third world plays. You have embraced one.

If now you want to say that you would only call a balk during a dead ball when you feel it merits it and not at other times, go ahead.

Again, I ask, why haven't you quoted one of normal relied upon sources to bail you out here. What say Messers. Roder and Jaska? How about JEA? Carl Childress? Anybody we can relate to outside of an unknown unemployed ML umpire?

Freix,

You know, if you spent more time discussing the topic at hand rather than searching for the tiniest details to nitpick in another's post, you might actually be likeable.

"Except for the purposes of APPEALS, a balk is <u>not</u> a play."

Better?

Holy cow, you're a pill.

</b>"F1 cheats while the ball is dead, then you may have something."</b>


Cheats? CHEATS <b>CHEATS</b>? He faked out an idiot umpire. That's cheating? Since when?

Again, how about the real cheating I posed to you? Intentional BOO about to happen, you know it. Ball is dead. What are you going to do about it? Ball is live, what are you going to do about it?

C'mon guy. There is no place in baseball...I repeat NO PLACE IN BASEBALL that you can cite for calling a balk during a deadball. None, nada, doesn't exist, nowhere, nohow.

Get that horse out of here, it's dead.

hehehe
 

Boy am I glad I'm outta this one!

Maybe I'm misunderstanding............
<li>Are you going to penalize the defense for too many men on the field when the ball is dead between plays and the players are changing?

<li>Are you going to penalize the offense because a lineman crosses the line of scrimmage toward his opponent while running to the sideline?

<li>Are you going to call illegal procedure on that same lineman running to his sideline crossing the of scrimmage?

Insatty, I think that is more the point I was attempting to achieve.
When they are not violating the opponents rights, then do you call penalties?

In the situation with a hidden ball trick during a dead ball, what rights have been violated? If the ball is not legally put in play, then it's not a live ball. The opponent's rights could not have been violated.

Better yet, the offense is ready to snap the ball, but snaps it just after the play clock expires. The QB drops back and the center has bear hug on the middle linebacker coming up the middle (protecting his QB). Do you call holding, or merely a play clock violation? Afterall, the center held on the play, correct? Still, the ball was dead: it was not legally put into play. The defense was not put at a disadvantage due to the hold. Do you <u>choose</u> the more severe penalty because you don't like holding in your games, or do you follow your rules?

Let's compare apples to apples if we are trying to compare the sports.......


Just my opinion,

Freix

Tee:

I'm joining you. It's beginning to remind me of the old Dorothy Parkerism, "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

GB

J/R does <u>not</u> say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. Their book agrees with me.

JEA does <u>not</u> say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. His book agrees with me.

As far as Carl, you'd have to ask him yourself. I don't speak with him much anymore since he's been so busy.

I have embraced no third world plays. In my experience, the balk on the hidden ball trick is more common than the advantageous fourth out.

But, finally, you guys wonder why I make such an exception during a dead ball in the case of this one situation. My answer is simple: Because the casebook comment says so.

<blockquote>However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:
(a) Straddling the pitcher's rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.</blockquote>

Now, tell me, why on Earth would the casebook comment addrsess this point separately if not to separate it from all other balks? I say because, unlike all other balks, it can occur during a dead ball.

[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 6th, 2002 at 02:34 PM]

Once again, a weak argument. Concurrently, you cannot cite any source that says we cannot call a balk while the ball is dead.

I was going to walk away from this understanding that we must agree to disagree, then you did something out of your usual character. You purposely slanted a resource to deceive others. You should truly be ashamed. If you have to rely on deception to convince others of your view point, you have slipped, Jim. You are not the Porter of the past. Shame on you.

"<i>J/R does not say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. Their book agrees with me."</i>

Bullsh!t. There is no reference in the book to calling a balk during a deadball at all. There is no agreement with you. You have lied.

"<i>JEA does not say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. His book agrees with me.</i>

Again, there is no reference, no agreement. You have sunk to a new low, Jim.

Wait, I get it. The real Jim Porter has been kidnapped. Someone less honest, someone with less integrity, someone who doesn't value Jim's reputation for honest disagreement is using his computer. What a dastardly act. You will pay for this whoever you are!

And don't try to follow me, stranger. I will wait for the real Jim Porter to return before I add to this thread again.



[Edited by GarthB on Aug 6th, 2002 at 02:48 PM]

I can recall Rich Fronheiser making similarly disparaging remarks about base umpires who get struck by batted balls. I'm sure he felt strongly about that until I witnessed one day when a batted ball struck him during a game we worked together.

Until it happens to you, it only happens to idiot umpires. Now, it's never happened to me, but I at least know that it potentially can. I don't require the pitcher to show me the ball in his glove before I put it into play.

The very nature of the offense is for the offense to be sneaky. They can fool the umpire. It's not that difficult. And it does not make the umpire an idiot.

Wow, as usual you have taken things way overboard.

I did not lie. I simply used the IDENTICAL reasoning that you have used. If it's a new low, it's one you sank to first.

Those sources support <u>neither</u> side because it is not addressed in any of them. You knew that when you asked me for those citations.

But you badgered one poster here by saying, "There is no history to call a balk during a deadball. There is no ruling to call a balk during a deadball. There is no rule to call a balk during a deadball There is no practice, outside of Little League, to call a balk during a deadball."

Those were just some of your remarks. But there's one chilling similarity with my remarks - they both claim the sources support us.

But they don't support me, and they don't support you. They are not addressed. Nowhere is there a rule that says a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. And, as I have said, there is equally no rule that supports calling a balk during a dead ball.

You were the first to claim, "There is no rule that," And you did it repeatedly. Now, I say, "There is no rule that," and suddenly I am the scum of the Earth. Must be tough to look in a mirror.

Pot/kettle/black

Re: hehehe
 

<i> Originally posted by Tim C </i>

<b> Boy am I glad I'm outta this one! </b>

TEE missed you in this one. BTW do we now ask F1 to <i> show us the ball </i> as we would do on a play at the bases?

It's amazing that this thread even got into the debate mode to begin with. Now we can have one of those old commericials <b> is it "live" or "dead" </b>

Pete Booth

Dear Stranger:


I never said said "J/R agrees with me."

I never said "JEA agrees with me"

I never lied.

I said there is no support for calling a balk during a deadball. The real Jim Porter would know the difference.

The real Jim porter would not lie and then excuse it because he no one can find a direct source.

I don't know how hard it would be to look in that mirror. I don't own one like that.

Be as glib as you like. You have lied and it is in black and white for the world to see. Unless, of course, you decide to edit or delete it. I wouldn't expect that, but then I never expected you to lie either.

Wait til Jim find out what you've done under his name.

I'm not going to continue with this discussion. It's obvious my arguments have caused hard feelings. I rule on this situation separately because the casebook comment addresses it separately.

<blockquote><b>However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:

(a) Straddling the pitcher's rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.</b></blockquote>

The <u>intent to deceive</u> is identical whether the ball is live or dead. That's it in a nutshell.

Feel free to call what you believe is right. I know I will.


[Edited by Jim Porter on Aug 6th, 2002 at 03:10 PM]

Dear Garth,

You have called me a liar roughly 8 times in this one thread. I <b>implied</b> you were a liar once about two years ago and you threw a big hissy fit, took your ball, and went home. It took months for me to make it out of your killfile, remember? It might be helpful if you could recall how you felt when I implied you were lying and you felt that you had not lied.

I strongly feel I have not lied. I said, quite clearly, that those sources do not say that a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. That's not a lie. They don't say that. I see that as support for my position that a balk CAN be called while play is dead.

You feel the opposite. That's called a disagreement. And grownups are supposed to be able to have them without calling one another names.

The stranger claims:

<b>"I strongly feel I have not lied. I said, quite clearly, that those sources do not say that a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. That's not a lie."</b>

This is getting as good as trying to figure out what the meaning word "is", is.

Now I know you're not Jim Porter.

How about this:



<b>"J/R does not say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. Their book agrees with me."</b>

In fact, J/R does not address the issue. To state that they agree with you would be accurate only if you didn't address the issue. Instead you have stated that "their book agrees with you. That, stranger, is a lie.

<b>"JEA does not say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. His book agrees with me.</b>

Oops, there's another one.

So, you don't feel you have lied. I'm sorry. Perhaps I mistated the facts. You merely misrepresented something to the point where what you said is simply not true.

I care less that you insist on calling balks during a deadball. I care less that have decided to go against years of baseball practice. I care less that you disagree with me or the anyone on this.

I am deeply disappointed that you have lied to attempt to buttress your position and offended that you now attempt to make light of it and blame it on others.

Be a man, stranger, admit your mistake and move on with life. The real Jim Porter would.

What does it take to "put out" a player?
It takes a play, correct? Jim, can the defense "put out" a runner without a play? I don't think that's possible.
<b>Jim, please describe for me how the defense can retire an offensive player <u>without a play (or a catch)</u>?</b>
(Note: an appeal is a play, however, it's not <u>considered</u> a play for the sake of multiple appeals).


Jim, a balk is a play (despite what you think).
J/R states:
<ul>It is a play if there is a
<ul>(1) tag or tag try of a runner,
(2) tag or tag try of a base,
(3) throw to another fielder in a try to put out a runner,
(4) rundown, or
<b>(5) balk.</b> [my emphasis]</ul></ul>

Can "a play" be made with a dead ball? I say, "No!"
J/R agrees and states:
<ul>Once the ball is dead, an offensive player can advance, but only because of an award resulting from live ball action. <b>Such runner cannot be put out by the defense</b> [my emphasis], but can be declared out by the umpire for abandoning his effort to run the bases or for passing another runner.</ul>

Jim, if the defense cannot putout a runner during a dead ball because they cannot make "a play" on him.
A balk is "a play" so it cannot occur during a dead ball. Can any other of the listed "plays" occur during a dead ball? No!!

<hr width=50%>
Can a dead ball be made live if not held by a pitcher on the rubber? I say, "NO!"
J/R agrees and states:
<ul>The ball becomes live again once
<ul>(a) every umpire discontinues his signaling of time, <b><u>and</u>
(b) <u>the pitcher has the ball</u> in-contact</b> [my emphasis]

("In-contact" refers to a pitcher who possesses a live ball and has stepped onto the pitching rubber for the purpose of taking the windup or stretch position.</ul></ul>

Jim, I hope this helps you.
Sometimes understanding the rules means correlating the different concepts of the rules that are separately written.
Correlating the rules shows that a balk cannot occur during a dead ball.



Just my opinion,

Freix




[Edited by Bfair on Aug 6th, 2002 at 03:50 PM]

I know I said I wouldn't, but I feel I need to address Garth's post because I think I see some progress.

Garth, in this thread you have claimed to have the, "rule book," "rule and practice," as well as "history," on your side. What rule? What practice? What history? Citations please. You don't have any of those to support you. You only have your conception of those.

I've been taught differently. I even have material from the old Bill Kinnamon's school with this exact situation and a balk as the answer. Our UIC uses his old materials from that school to create our board's test.

What I have been taught of practice, history, custom, tradition, and rule is that this particular balk is handled differently in that it can and should be called even if the ball is dead. It is inherently deceptive, and it is a balk. And it seems like good, common sense to me.

And <u>neither</u> of us have anything considered current and authoritative to back up our opinions.

Correct, just your opinion.

<blockquote><b>Can "a play" be made with a dead ball? I say, "No!"

J/R agrees and states:

Once the ball is dead, an offensive player can advance, but only because of an award resulting from live ball action. Such runner cannot be put out by the defense [my emphasis], but can be declared out by the umpire for abandoning his effort to run the bases or for passing another runner.</b></blockquote>

That does not address the fact of whether or not a pitcher who is intending to deceive by straddling the rubber without the ball should be called for a balk when the ball is dead. It addresses whether or not the runner can be put out by the defense. In fact, with stunning irony, exceptions are listed as to when a runner can be declared out by the umpire while the ball is dead. Just like I'm saying this is an exception to when the umpire can call a balk while the ball is dead.

Nice try, Steve. We went over this thoroughly years ago, long before you came onto the scene. It just ain't addressed anywhere. Someone's going to have to ask the ump at WUA and MLB.com about this specific hidden ball trick situation and see what they say.

This is a specious argument. Football and basketball have RULES regarding dead ball fouls. Punching someone during a dead ball (in baseball) is not penalized by a balk or an out. It's an unsportsmanlike act that is penalized by ejection, as in any sport (except pro hockey). No balk, no out penalty on a dead ball.

Where does deceiving the umpire come in during the original post. An ALERT ump knows where the ball is, and WILL NOT put the ball in play.

"No football official advances unless he masters dead-ball officiating." You never worked with some of the referees I have. And besides, ONLY the ref administers penalties.

Bob

Stranger:

I have no problem with either of us agreeing that the rule book does not say that it CAN happen or that it CANNOT happen. However, unlike you, since it does not say it CAN happen, I believe it CANNOT.

Where we have differed is here:

I have not cited two works and claimed that they agreed with me when they, in fact, did not. That would not be the truth. You, on the other hand, have made such a statement. In fact, neither source agrees with you. Both sources are silent on the issue.

History, tradition, practice? They come from where they always come from, the past.

I don't believe you can cite an example of an ML umpire, during an ML game, calling a balk during a deadball.

I have Kinnamons handouts and "bible". Please let me know the page number of where he says a balk may be called during a dead ball. I'll be more than happy to check it out.

You say you have been taught differently. What does that matter? I know of some umpires who were taught that the hands are part of the bat. That doesn't make them right on that issue either,

Again, you can call this any way you want in your world. That doesn't offend me. When you resort to deception and otherwise stating that which is not true, I am deeply disappointed.

<i>And neither of us have anything considered current and authoritative to back up our opinions.</i>

In writing, that is. True enough, and one of us didn't have to lie about it.

Wow....
 

And my wife thinks baseball is boring....

Nanny-nanny boo-boo. You're a liar too. You lied and said you had all that history and tradition and rule on your side and you didn't. You lied. Liar, liar, liar.

See how much fun it can be when the children can't get past name-calling? Talking about being disappointed, Garth, your inability to be civil, respectful, or even adult disappoints me. The Garth I used to know has been replaced with an eight-year-old.

Take your Tonka toys and go home. My mommy won't let me play at your house anymore. She's says you're a bad influence.

Jim Porter gets it right once again.

Your theatre training shows.....
 

The art of deception is second only to the art of mis-direction. It is obvious you have mastered both.

Facts are facts Jim:

<i>"J/R does not say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. <b>Their book agrees with me."</b>

Jim Porter, or someone signing his name

"JEA does not say a balk cannot be called during a dead ball. <b>His book agrees with me."</i></b>

Jim Porter, or someone signing his name.

<i>"There is no history to call a balk during a deadball. There is no ruling to call a balk during a deadball. There is no rule to call a balk during a deadball There is no practice, outside of Little League, to call a balk during a deadball."</i>

GB

<i>"There is no place in baseball...I repeat NO PLACE IN BASEBALL that you can cite for calling a balk during a deadball. None, nada, doesn't exist, nowhere, no how."</i>

GB

Now then, Jim, or whoever you are, which two of the above statements claim written support for one's position?

The first two quotes untruthfully claim that two books support a position.

The second two quotes state that there is no support in any of the listed materials or sources to support a position.

The second two quotes are true.

The first two are not.

Maybe on the stage you can escape into your fantasy world, but this is the real world. Joke all you want. Act like a three year old all you want. Try mis-direction, acting cute, deception, acts of innocence...anything you want. Facts are facts.

Here's another. You won't have to worry about me posting in reponse to you ever again. I do not deal with people who cannot be trusted.

Re: Your theatre training shows.....
 

Talk about theatrics, that was quite an exit, Garth. It had a touch of Mamet, a dash of Tennessee Williams, and just the tiniest sprinkling of Moliere sarcasm.

No Thornton Wilder in you, that's for sure.

I'm only on page two of this thread, and this might be covered elsewhere, but ...

5.02 "While the ball is dead, ... no bases may be run ... except ... as the result of acts which occurred while the ball was alive."

So, while you might be able to have a "balk", I don't think you can award bases for it. And, if you can't award bases for it, what's the point?

Subs cross the line "all the time" between plays as they shuttle in and out. It doesn't make them offsides or whatever. Plus, I beleive, you cannot call too many men if the extras get off the field bsfore the snap.

I agree that your logic is quite sound, Bob. However, it is this same rule that tells us, "After the umpire calls "Play" the ball is alive and in play . . ."

Well, we know that's not true. It's not just the umpire's call of play that is required to put the ball in play.

You could be right. Both sides seem to have sound arguments. That's what makes this such a debate. But it is possible that the language of 5.02 simply includes an oversight like so many other OBR entries. Or, I could be flat-out wrong.

Hey , Pete, are you checking this out?
 

It seems like only yesterday, (or several months ago), that Pete Booth wondered why this board wasn't very active, and what could be done to get it in gear.

Pete, it looks like you've found the answer. This thread is far and away a real doozy as far as involvement and volume is concerned. We've got folks fighting, arguing, old voices getting back in action, and naturally, no real consensus on the original question.

No doubt about it, Pete, the good old days are coming back.


Senior

Yup, Jim....
 

...I got nailed good.

I was working an MSBL game with Jim and was in deep B (for 2-man, it was deep -- which is usually where I work with R3 only).

Laser beam hits me right on the keyster.

It was a strange field for me, so I had my wallet in my back pocket instead of in my trunk or glove box. Good thing, cause the ball hit my wallet and split my driver's license in half and broke my BCBS card.

I wasn't the first guy he hit that year, apparently.

I don't remember talking bad about people getting hit, although I won't even argue that point. Maybe I did. Sometimes you have to get hit by lightning to understand it.

After I got hit, Jim and I later ejected two people. The bruise AROUND the wallet did the blue-black to green-yellow thing over the next few weeks. Ah, memories.

Rich

In Rich's defense, it was indeed a laser beam that got him. One of the hottest shots I've ever seen. It was literally off the bat and up against Rich's derriere in the blink of an eye. He had time to turn so it got him in the wallet, and that was all he had time for. If he had tried to step out of the way, Rich would no longer be a, "he." I must admit having a hard time regaining my composure behind the plate. I felt bad for Rich, but it was just so damn funny.

You'll be glad to know, Rich, that whole league went to wooden bats this year. Now you'd see more $40 dribblers than home runs or shots like you took. It's a glorious thing for the umpires. We are the envy of all umpires in the state. Everyone suddenly wants to work our games. And the players are planning a huge bonfire at the end of the season! Oh, and they announced games at Fenway Park next year - - woo-hoo!

Re: Yup, Jim....
 

Rich, this story makes sense because I remember you from NBUA and you seemed to always work the bases. You usually faced the plate however!

Your old friend, Booney.

Once again, "Boone," and I've told you this before, I worked about a hundred games in Seattle that year. And 53% of those games were plate games.

Dave Hensley can verify that I do my share of plate games, as can Jim Porter.

All I know is if you want my Al Clark shin guards, you better be nicer to me :-)

Rich

[Edited by Rich Fronheiser on Aug 7th, 2002 at 06:53 AM]

Laser beam is right
 

I have never seen a ball hit so hard and probably won't for quite some time. Stunned as I was, I was still able to make the umpire interference call and place the runners and deflect a mild argument that I should've scored the runner on third "cause he would've scored anyway."

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

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.

Actually, I think it was reached back in the early 80s. When I was of LL age, we had metal bats. But these things weren't the whipping sticks of today. Those bats were heavy and the ball didn't jump off them.

Or I just stunk as a player (actually, I was third in my ten team league in batting average when I was 12 and it was the highlight of my athletic "career"). Sigh.

Rich

Questions from Richard

R2, R3, extra innings, The defense intentionally walks the batter to load
the bases. Manager now calls time (dead ball) and goes out to talk to his
pitcher. Then, F3 sneakily keeps the ball and the pitcher mounts the rubber
without the ball. The deceived plate umpire calls "play" and the deceived R1
leads off and is tagged out by F3. U1 calls a balk and the the winning run
scores from third; game over; Can this be Done? If yes why? and if No why?
or in other words can a BALK be called on a dead ball?
>
Hi Richard,

The ball could not become live on this play since the pitcher did not have
the ball. The ball can become live only when the pitcher has the ball on
the rubber AND the ball is put in play by the plate umpire (and no other
umpire is signaling "time"). In the above play, as soon as it is discovered
that the pitcher did not have the ball, the umpires would correct the
situation, putting the runners back on their bases and starting over. There
is no balk, and there cannot be a balk if the ball is dead.

Thanks for your questions!

World Umpires Association

[Edited by Richardr10 on Aug 7th, 2002 at 11:19 AM]

Richard: My question and response were both a bit more brief, but the result is the same.

I hope that Mr. Boone and Insatty are satisfied:

Copy of email to and from the WUA:

<b>> Questions from Garth Benham :
>
> Can a pitcher balk when the ball is dead?
>
Hi Garth,

No.

Thanks for your question!

World Umpires Association</b>

GB
 

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

Sameoh, sameoh.

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Laser beam is right
 

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

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.

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

Only one problem w/ WUA ruling
 

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

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

OK
 

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!"

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

<B>"1) Runners can most certainly advance during a dead ball. Base awards and on dead ball balks!"</b>

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


<b>"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".</b>

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.


<b>"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."</b>

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.

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

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.

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

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.

<b>"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."</b>

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....."

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

Quote:

"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.

"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

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,
 

You are still unsure?

Unbelievable.

Re: Mike,
 

Tee: Concerning Mike Sears: You said "unbelievable." I say: "Amazing!" (grin)

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.)

Papa C: <b>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.
</b>


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.)

Re: Mike,
 

I'd say 70/30. 70% to ruling this a "don't do that" and making it right. 30% to calling this a balk.

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?

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

Thanks Garth!

Sounds more and more to me like a "don't do that" type of thing.

my head and eys hurt from reading all this.

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?"