Justin Verlander balk.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jdmara

Let me throw a wild idea out there (which I know I'm probably going to be wrong) but if the batter is HBP, he would get first base and the runner would be forced to second. The batter and the runner advanced one base and therefore the balk would be ignored? What a wild play...

-Josh

If it was, indeed, a pitch.

In this case, it appears that the balk was for making a motion associated with a pitch and then throwing home. Keep the ball live, but since it's not a pitch it can't be a HBP.

[jdmara]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If it was, indeed, a pitch.

In this case, it appears that the balk was for making a motion associated with a pitch and then throwing home. Keep the ball live, but since it's not a pitch it can't be a HBP.

I knew I was missing something...Good catch!

-Josh

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

If it was, indeed, a pitch.

In this case, it appears that the balk was for making a motion associated with a pitch and then throwing home. Keep the ball live, but since it's not a pitch it can't be a HBP.

+1

That's how I read it, too. 8.05(g)

[jicecone]

Justin Verlander said that he attemped a move to first, had a "brain fart" and tried to cover it up by throwing home, hoping he could fool the umpires?!!!!

[justanotherblue]

What would have made this really intersting is if he threw the ball out of play.

[BK47]

whats priceless is watching the reaction of the Catcher.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by mbyron

+1

That's how I read it, too. 8.05(g)

However, this is the part that confuses me:

8.05 PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

[nopachunts]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

However, this is the part that confuses me:

8.05 PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

It was a thrown ball, not a pitch therefore not HBP.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

However, this is the part that confuses me:

8.05 PENALTY: The ball is dead, and each runner shall advance one base without liability to be put out, unless the batter reaches first on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter, or otherwise, and all other runners advance at least one base, in which case the play proceeds without reference to the balk.

The term "hit batter" refers to "hit by a pitch." For example, when F1 fails to stop but then pitches legally to the batter, and hits him, then that might be a situation where the balk would be ignored.

But not every throw in the batter's direction is a pitch, as jicecone has endeavored to point out recently. The umpires ruled that Verlander was off the rubber when he threw home and hit DeJesus, so even though the ball was live it was not a pitch.

[TwoBits]

[QUOTE=mbyron;751715]The term "hit batter" refers to "hit by a pitch." For example, when F1 fails to stop but then pitches legally to the batter,


What???

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

What???

What's the problem? In OBR (and NCAA) a legal pitch can follow a balk. A pitch as opposed to a throw to a base, for example.

All illegal pitches (with runners on) are balks, but not all balks are illegal pitches.

[TussAgee11]

Lets break it down rule by rule. My remarks in regular font, not to be taken as an absolute interpretation of the language but rather as my opinion(s).

2.00 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

An ILLEGAL PITCH is (1) a pitch -- (defined as A PITCH is a ball delivered to the batter by the pitcher -- Comment: All other deliveries of the ball by one player to another are thrown balls) --delivered to the batter when the pitcher does not have his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate [...] An illegal pitch when runners are on base is a balk.

CROSS REFERENCE

8.01 (d) If the pitcher makes an illegal pitch with the bases unoccupied not the case here, this rule is not applicable it shall be called a ball...

The first judgment of this play, was the pitcher's release of the ball a delivery to the batter (pitch, or in this case, illegal pitch) or a throw to a fielder (thrown ball)??

The umpire should ask "was his release of the ball a delivery of the ball to the batter?" If yes, you obviously have an illegal pitch, enforce the balk if need be. If no, you're going to have to keep reading

---

If you see it as a thrown ball (put me in this camp), the following rules are to be considered. It should be noted that HBP is now out of play since you've ruled thrown ball.

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners it is a balk when-

(a) The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery.

(b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, faints a throw to first base and fails to complete the throw

(c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base.


Was he in contact with the rubber when this release was made? No, he was not. So (a)-(c) can't be applied.

(e) The pitcher makes an illegal pitch.
If you're down here, you've already determined he hasn't.

(f) The pitcher delivers the ball to the batter while he is not facing the batter.

Not applicable since you've already said he hasn't delivered the ball to the batter and this is a thrown ball.

Skipping down...

8.05 (h) The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game

Well, this is a stretch. He is performing some action here, so its hard to call his stupid play a delay.



8.05(g) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher's plate.

Well, if you think he's still on the plate, in your judgment, you have already applied (a)-(c) - your pick. But if you think he's off the back, here is, I believe, your only justification for calling a balk. Not touching the pitcher's plate? Check. ANY motion naturally associated with his pitch? Hmmm.

Imagine F1 doing the SAME EXACT THING with a stealing R3. Simply stepping and throwing to home can't be considered "any motion naturally associated with his pitch." I mean, heck, ANY is a pretty all encompassing word, but we already can deduce we can't interpret this literally. A throw is a motion naturally associated with his pitch, but we know he can step off, becoming an infielder, and throw home. Perhaps it would be helpful to know what action this rule is really trying to prohibit.

If only the rulebook told us the purpose of the balk rule. Alas, it does!

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire's mind, the "intent" of the pitcher should govern.

Well there is indeed doubt in my mind, so I am going to use this guideline. Its a bit hazy on whether or not this guideline can be used when interpreting the RULE as opposed to the ACTION on the field. It doesn't say, so I think we are okay to use it in interpreting the rule.

How could making any motion naturally associated with his pitch while he his not touching the pitcher's plate be considered a deliberate deception of the base runner? Well, if he does something while off the rubber to take advantage of being an infielder, while the base runner thinks he's still in contact with the rubber, and held liable to the restrictions of being on that rubber!

In the Verlander situation, I don't see that attempt by the pitcher to deliberately decieve. He's not trying to trick the runner into thinking he is on the rubber when he is really off.

Therefore, in my opinion, 8.05 (g) can not be applied.

No balk, no nothing. Doesn't matter if it hit the batter.

I know I'm going to eat crow on this, and it should be noted that if I were on the field, I'd probably have a balk too.

All of this notwithstanding, even if you have nothing, after the consult you are probably going to have R1 advance to 2nd on the overthrow. Even if he never went there, 9.04(c) provides enough precedent to give you the hand of God and put him where he would have been had the presumed correct ruling of NOTHING been made from the start.

My head hurts. Plays like this make you go whoa.