Balk Talk

[UmpJM]

Lapopez,

I'm with Bob on this one.

The rule is a "hold over" from the days when the pitcher was constrained to a "box" rather than to contact with the pitcher's plate.

Some of the more creative pitchers developed "freak" deliveries, some of which involved delivering the pitch while the pitcher's back was to the batter in an attempt to keep the batter off balance and disguise when they actually released the ball.

The rulesmakers decided they wanted to eliminate the freak deliveries, hence the rule.

With the pitcher constrained to contact with the rubber and delivering from either the set or windup position, it is virtually impossible to violate 8.05(f) while pitching from windup or set while in contact with the rubber - though I suppose someone could come up with a way if they really tried.

One thing that is fairly common is to see the F1 do a "look back" during his delivery at 2B when there is an R2 in an attempt to hold the runner. That is perfectly legal and NOT a violation of 8.05(f).

JM

[johnnyg08]

oh, the pick off from the wind-up is a good one. nice add.

[Lapopez]

In my list of balks, the following two are consecutive:

a) Pitches from the windup position without maintaining contact with the rubber.
b) Pitches from the set position with his pivot foot outside the end of the rubber.

5a. Was it deliberate that these were presented consecutively? What I mean is, was the author purposely distinguishing the windup and set? This bothers me because (a) should apply to both the windup and the set.

5b. Regarding (b), is it practical to be very strict on this, especially in light of the way Evans presents this in his video where he said it is acceptable for the pitcher to at least have half of his foot adjacent to the rubber?

[johnnyg08]

well, it is two different types of pitching motions. in the wind-up, the pitcher moves his free foot differently than when he does from the set.

5b. my thoughts would be to enforce the rule as it's written and to not be overly strict. others will chime in as well, so you can decide what you want to train.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

In my list of balks, the following two are consecutive:

a) Pitches from the windup position without maintaining contact with the rubber.
b) Pitches from the set position with his pivot foot outside the end of the rubber.

5a. Was it deliberate that these were presented consecutively? What I mean is, was the author purposely distinguishing the windup and set? This bothers me because (a) should apply to both the windup and the set.

5b. Regarding (b), is it practical to be very strict on this, especially in light of the way Evans presents this in his video where he said it is acceptable for the pitcher to at least have half of his foot adjacent to the rubber?

Lapopez,

I'm not clear exactly what you are asking, nor what your "source" is (in re: ...was the author distinguishing...).

So, I'll just share some thoughts I hope you find relevant.

In regard to your 5a, I would agree that the requirement is the same whether pitching from windup or set. The purpose of the rule is to constrain the distance and, to a lesser degree, angle from which the pitcher delivers.

Note that, despite the wording of the rule, ALL pitchers lose contact with the rubber before the ball leaves their hand on EVERY pitch.

An ILLEGAL PITCH is (1) a pitch delivered to the batter when the pitcher does not have his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher’s plate; ...

Sometimes, the "hole" in front of the rubber makes it problematic for the pitcher to maintain contact. I'll make appropriate "allowance" for that.

In regard to 5b, I follow the Evans guidleines, again making appropriate allowance for the condition of the rubber/mound. And, I believe the constraint is the same, whether the pitcher is pitching from windup or set.

I can't see any significance to the "pairing" or sequence of the two proscriptions.

JM

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

In regard to 5b, I follow the Evans guidleines, again making appropriate allowance for the condition of the rubber/mound.

Thank you, JM. I did find your comments relevant. With regard to what you wrote above, do you adhere to Evans even on the high school field?

[johnnyg08]

Sometimes there's no better interp...if the rule is the same.

[Lapopez]

I'm probably being picky again.

6. From my list, one of the noted balks: "Pitches when the catcher does not have both feet in the catcher's box." Since the rule says the catcher shall have both feet in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch, I would prefer to substitute "Initiates a pitch" for the word "Pitches". Agreed?

7. Ok, what's the deal with rotating and pumping? Is this an old relic too? I think I can picture rotating, but what is pumping?

[cookie]

Ump JM wrote (regarding not facing the batter while throwing the pitch):

"With the pitcher constrained to contact with the rubber and delivering from either the set or windup position, it is virtually impossible to violate 8.05(f) while pitching from windup or set while in contact with the rubber - though I suppose someone could come up with a way if they really tried."

I think this video has made the rounds with many of us on these boards, but anyway, here's a funny YouTube video of a baseball game where F1 does exactly that:

YouTube - Funny: Perfect Pitch

copy and paste to "Funny: Perfect Pitch"

just a little humor...