Is whining & *****ing more prevalent this year?

[Dave Reed]

Well, you mentioned CCIW, so it's reasonable (but, I admit, not necessary) to assume that the games were played under NCAA rules. But no matter, because OBR uses the terms distance and direction, and direction implies angle.

Sure, an umpire can be surprised by a balk move. But the fact that he is surprised shouldn't be the reason for a balk call.

The NCAA in no way suggests that 45 degrees is half of the included angle between first and home. Instead, the NCAA rule defines "directly" in terms of 45 degrees, and the rule applies at all three bases.

Of course I would call a balk if the pitcher steps directly toward home while throwing to first. Where we may differ is that under FED or NCAA, "directly" would mean within a 45 degree angle from the line connecting pivot foot to the base. In OBR, in principle, but not in actual practice, the angle would be slightly larger.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

Well, you mentioned CCIW, so it's reasonable (but, I admit, not necessary) to assume that the games were played under NCAA rules. But no matter, because OBR uses the terms distance and direction, and direction implies angle.

Since when? The whole concept of angle was removed from OBR interpretation and training of umpires precisely because it was erroneous and confusing and led to splitting hairs in trying to determine a balk. Did the pitcher go 46*? 50*? 40*? Instead, it became a question of if he stepped more toward home than first, he's got to pitch. He has to gain distance and direction toward first. Either he does this toward first or toward home. One cannot have both, and angles tend to lead to just that.

Sure, an umpire can be surprised by a balk move. But the fact that he is surprised shouldn't be the reason for a balk call.

I never said it was. You simply assumed it. I'm beginning to believe your umpiring is based a lot on assumptions. Regardless, one can and surely has called a balk because of an illegal act that ended up surprising the heck out of the umpire.

The NCAA in no way suggests that 45 degrees is half of the included angle between first and home. Instead, the NCAA rule defines "directly" in terms of 45 degrees, and the rule applies at all three bases.

As someone involved in the NCAA rules process once said at their winter clinics, "We should get away from trying to discern the angle of the pitcher's foot and just focus on where his nonpivot foot goes. If it doesn't go toward the base he throws to, call a balk." When pressed on this 45* angle rule explanation, he advised not to get so hung up on that and that it ought to be removed from the rule book altogether.

I agree.

Of course I would call a balk if the pitcher steps directly toward home while throwing to first. Where we may differ is that under FED or NCAA, "directly" would mean within a 45 degree angle from the line connecting pivot foot to the base. In OBR, in principle, but not in actual practice, the angle would be slightly larger.

Why do I get the feeling that if I asked what time it was here, you'd be the only one who told us how to build a watch instead of just saying the time? That's the problem with too many umpires. They look for the picky BS in things or they just make assumptions based on myths. I made a simple call based on an obvious observation and explained it to the head coach in simple terms. I don't doubt that had you tried to explain the balk call, you'd be making the coach's head spin with terminology of angles, 45*, directly, connecting line, etc.

I've prided myself on my rules acumen and the interpretation aspect of them. One thing I've learned through the years is the K.I.S.S. method works in umpiring, too, especially considering the people who are coaching.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Regardless, one can and surely has called a balk because of an illegal act that ended up surprising the heck out of the umpire.

Yes, but it's not the surprise factor that made it a balk; it was the illegal act that did.

I think you and Dave are on the same side. Dave was simply saying that if the only basis of a balk is "I was surprised by the move he made," it's not always a balk. Obviously, it takes some illegal act to make it a balk.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Dave was simply saying that if the only basis of a balk is "I was surprised by the move he made," it's not always a balk.

I believe Dave would go so far as to say if that's the ONLY basis, it's NEVER a balk.

[KJUmp]

Dave....thanks for hijacking what started out as an excellent thread by Ump25 about the bit****ng and moaning that we're all subjected to by idiot coaches.

It never ceases to amaze me how when a the OP is a good thread about apples, and oranges get mentioned in passing, someone feels the need to shift the discussion to oranges. Dave, if you want to talk about angles and how they should be applied in determining balks....start a new thread.

BTW, I think it's safe to assume that Ump25 knows a thing or two about balks at the college level, wether the game is being played under NCAA or OBR rules.

[billken]

Until Honigs starts selling protractors, we are faced with a judgment call.

I've had a coach come out on me and argue that he had 45 degrees as he pointed to the divot that the pitcher's front foot made when he picked the kid off at 3rd. I told him that I didn't have a protractor to determine if it was 44 degrees or 46 degrees, so he was just going to have to live with my call.

The bottom line is that the 45 degrees is a thumb rule, but the actual rule says "directly". If a kid is "fudging" the line, he puts it in my hands and he might not like the outcome. If he will not try and get away with the maximum allowable and step at 35 degrees (a point that is clearly more toward the base than the plate), then he takes me and my judgment out of the equation.

We have all been driving down the freeway at 59 in a 55 mph zone and not been pulled over. But if you get pulled over and the radar says 59, you are subject to whatever penalty the officer decides to give you. He may pull you over and tell you to slow down, he may write you a warning or he could give you a citation. If you don't want to be paying tickets, adjusting your cruise control to 54 mph will save you the hassle.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by billken

Until Honigs starts selling protractors, we are faced with a judgment call.

Don't give them any ideas! It may be a matter of time before they come out with MLB protractors. Of course, amateur umpires will then rush out to get the same thing.

[Kevin Finnerty]

Originally Posted by billken

We have all been driving down the freeway at 59 in a 55 mph zone and not been pulled over. But if you get pulled over and the radar says 59, you are subject to whatever penalty the officer decides to give you. He may pull you over and tell you to slow down, he may write you a warning or he could give you a citation. If you don't want to be paying tickets, adjusting your cruise control to 54 mph will save you the hassle.

Fifty-nine?? You go down a freeway at anything under 70 around here and you'll get rear-ended.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by billken

Until Honigs starts selling protractors, we are faced with a judgment call.

I've had a coach come out on me and argue that he had 45 degrees as he pointed to the divot that the pitcher's front foot made when he picked the kid off at 3rd. I told him that I didn't have a protractor to determine if it was 44 degrees or 46 degrees, so he was just going to have to live with my call.

The bottom line is that the 45 degrees is a thumb rule, but the actual rule says "directly".

1. When a coach starts pointing at spots I advise him not to demonstrate on the field. If he continues, he's done for the day.

2. 45 degrees is not, for professionally trained umpires, and should not for other umpires, be a "thumb rule". Did the pitcher step more towards home than first? Then he better pitch.

[TheShadowKnows]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

Dave....thanks for hijacking what started out as an excellent thread by Ump25 about the bit****ng and moaning that we're all subjected to by idiot coaches.

It never ceases to amaze me how when a the OP is a good thread about apples, and oranges get mentioned in passing, someone feels the need to shift the discussion to oranges. Dave, if you want to talk about angles and how they should be applied in determining balks....start a new thread.

BTW, I think it's safe to assume that Ump25 knows a thing or two about balks at the college level, wether the game is being played under NCAA or OBR rules.

Thanks...I thought this thread was about the beetching coaches,then when I read it all, it had turned into umpires going at each other about Balk calls....let's stick with the idiot coaches and start new thread for Balks.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by TheShadowKnows

Thanks...I thought this thread was about the beetching coaches,then when I read it all, it had turned into umpires going at each other about Balk calls....let's stick with the idiot coaches and start new thread for Balks.

That's because there's always an anal umpire who feels the need to start nitpicking and be overly and unnecessarily analytical. These are the guys who think that they can find fault in anything everyone here says.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by yawetag

Yes, but it's not the surprise factor that made it a balk; it was the illegal act that did.

Obviously, it takes some illegal act to make it a balk.

Really??? Wow. I never knew that.