Balk plus Ball

[umpjim]

Impossible I thought, when answering a question about a pitch delivered when a balk was called. I was right about that but I had some free time and was perusing the OBR rule book I got from the PONY guys and there it says in 8.02 PENALTY (a)(2)-(6): (d):"..............automatic ball and, if there are any runners on base, a balk".
Very rare because it penalizes a doctored ball. But learn something new every time you sit on the john. Maybe the pre season talk about a balk for going to the mouth came from misreading this which exempts 8.01(a)(1) from this penalty.
Anybody ever called this?

[johnnyg08]

Does it mean "ball" w/ no runners on base, and "balk" with runners on base?

I don't think you can have both. Certainly I may learn something here. Too late to look anything up for me tonight.

[MrUmpire]

It's a poorly written sentence, not a freak rule. This has been pointed out before. Sometimes you have to understand the game.

[SanDiegoSteve]

It should read "If no runners are on base it's an automatic ball, and if there are runners on base it is a balk." It is a mistake in the new rule. The old rule called for a warning, a ball, and announcement. Now the rule is automatic ejection and suspension. It is only a ball or balk if the offense elects not to take the result of the play. If they do take the play, play on McDuff but the pitcher still gets tossed.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

It should read "If no runners are on base it's an automatic ball, and if there are runners on base it is a balk."

That just rephrases the mistake of apparently conjoining the penalties.

Better: If no runners are on base it's an automatic ball; with runners on base it is a balk.

Shall we turn this into a "let's rewrite OBR" thread?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by mbyron

That just rephrases the mistake of apparently conjoining the penalties.

How? It separates them just fine. If no runners...If runners. Nothing confusing about my wording. The current wording does not make a ball call conditional upon having no runners.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Better: If no runners are on base it's an automatic ball; with runners on base it is a balk.

Why? Because you wrote it? It just restates exactly what I wrote.

Originally Posted by mbyron

Shall we turn this into a "let's rewrite OBR" thread?

Why not? Then we can put an end to asinine threads like this one.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

How? It separates them just fine. If no runners...If runners. Nothing confusing about my wording. The current wording does not make a ball call conditional upon having no runners.

Why? Because you wrote it? It just restates exactly what I wrote.

Seriously? You can't tell the difference between a sentence with a conjunction and one without? You're dumber even than your politics suggests.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Seriously? You can't tell the difference between a sentence with a conjunction and one without? You're dumber even than your politics suggests.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a bingo..........

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

It's a poorly written sentence, not a freak rule. This has been pointed out before. Sometimes you have to understand the game.

Could you give me a link to where this has previously been pointed out before. I could believe that they really wanted to punish doctoring so a ball and a balk is believable. Did they say that they screwed up the rewrite of the rule?

[johnnyg08]

Post the rewritten rule.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I could believe that they really wanted to punish doctoring so a ball and a balk is believable.

Then you need to change your name from umpjim to coachjim.

[umpjim]

From MLB.com:

8.02 PENALTY (d) If the manager of the team at bat does not elect to accept the play, the umpire-in-chief shall call an automatic ball and, if there are any runners on base, a balk.

Find it hard to believe they would let this wording get through in a rewrite and not mean it.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Find it hard to believe they would let this wording get through in a rewrite and not mean it.

Is there anyone on the site whom you'd believe? Evans points out that there are hundreds of errors in OBR.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by umpjim

From MLB.com:

Find it hard to believe they would let this wording get through in a rewrite and not mean it.

1. What makes you think this was subject to a rewrite?

2. This is why you should be coachjim and not umpjim. You haven't a clue.

[umpjim]

Somebody in this thread said it was a rewrite.

My old LLGB has the old wording which usually matches OBR and it is different. I don't have any older OBR books to compare.

So, I believe it is a rewrite and not one of the errors we all know about in the rules.

It might be a new error but you haven't given me any proof of that. I believe a lot of what is posted here. If you can give me a cite or the previous discussion of this particular error I would appreciate it. I am aware of the errors that exist in OBR.