Calling the game

[Bfair]

While I donÂ’t like to post the same question on multiple boards, this is one that IÂ’ve been discussing on a different board that I feel deserves greater attention. Tell us what you think.
HereÂ’s the situation:

You are in your average amateur game of whatever level you call.
It's bottom of the 9th, 2 out, with R3 only in a 5-5 tie. F1, with a live ball, takes the rubber in the windup position with hands in glove at his chest and looks in for signs, but his catcher who is crouched is lookin' to his dugout. While R3 is standing on 3B, both he and the batter are looking to 3B coach for offensive signs. PU is ready to go.........
F1, in his impatience, either:

1. drops his hands to his sides without disengaging, or
   
2. disengages forward and starts to do a little housework on his landing area.

While the action of the pitcher is technically a violation of the written rules,
do you score a run on such technical violation of the written rule?

Do you call this a balk in your game, or do you ignore the pitcherÂ’s actions?
Why or why not?


Freix

[GarthB]

Steve:

Why are you so specific in stating the inning, the outs and the score? That seems to suggest that you think the answer to your question would differ under other circumstances. Personally, I think that is dangerous.

Try this:

"A pitcher, during a live ball, and while his catcher in getting signs for the dugout and a runner is preoccupied with talking to his coach, has taken to the rubber and assumed the wind-up position.

Tired of waiting for everyone to get ready, the pitcher either drops his hands to his sides without legally stepping off, or steps off incorrectly.

Do you call this technical balk or ignore it?"

Reviewing: Runner is not paying attention or attempting to get a lead. He is not at a disadvantage. Catcher is unaware of the pitcher. Pitcher has no advantage. Runner is standing on his base, again no disadvantage to the runner and no advantage to the pitcher. No one is expecting a pitch or a play. Adavantage: umpire.

Personally, at the levels I call, under those conditions, in any inning,I don't believe I would have seen that move.

No call.





[Edited by GarthB on Feb 20th, 2003 at 01:33 PM]

[jicecone]

This is where you hope you are working with a plate umpire thats utilizes the Do Not Pitch/Pitch Signal, it will make life much easier for all. However, because you did not address this, I will assume the the PU was'nt paying attention either and in that case, for the scenario you presented, No Harm, No Foul.

I may have called timeout!! But most likely I probably would have ignored the pitchers action.

Why?
1.The pitcher was not trying to deceive the runner, who was'nt paying attention anyway.

2. I don't pick boogers.

[greymule]

Speaking of the Pitch/Do Not Pitch signal: Is there time out when the Do Not Pitch signal is in effect?

[GarthB]

Good question greymule. To be even more intentionally obtuse, but with good intent, exactly what is the "do not pitch" signal? I don't see that in any of my mechanic books. Does it at all resemble "time?"

Could it therefore be confused with "time" and have the potential for starting a sh*thouse? Why not just call "time?"

[greymule]

I think that balks present a unique problem. There are so many technical violations. And they are rare, so when they occur, they often surprise us. The runner unexpectedly breaks from 3B, and the pitcher is suddenly in front of the rubber and making a play. Did he step off backward? Didn't notice! Should have noticed, but didn't. Just wasn't looking for it on every pitch.

Perhaps because we know we may have missed a balk here or there during the game, we sometimes hesitate to call anything but the obvious.

If there were 8 or 10 balks in every game—if they were a larger part of the game—we'd get proficient at calling them. We'd be watching every move the pitcher makes every time. But in college, semipro, high school, American Legion, I don't remember ever seeing a balk called. Did nobody balk between 1964 and 1972?

Perhaps truly proficient and accurate balk-calling requires the type of attention and concentration that few people short of full-time professional umps can give.

[GarthB]

Jim:

There are black and white umpires, or atleast those who think they are (I'll bet I can demonstrate that EVERY umpire deviates from the rule book at one time or another) and there are umpires who know the rules and know the game.

There's a great book out, "50 Ways to Ruin a Game." I would recommend it highly.


And, trust me, my conversation with any coach about any alleged incident like this will be very short indeed, that is if I ever get a coach so ignorant that he would even ask about it.

[jicecone]

In defense of my answer, I mentioned that the runner was not deceived. For the technical, black and white, by the book umpire, I refer you to OBR pg. 70. comments at the bottom of the page.

"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"

The "Do not pitch" signal as officially named, can be found on page 72 of the 2003 NFHS. The ball is dead.

[PeteBooth]

Originally posted by Bfair

While I donÂ’t like to post the same question on multiple boards, this is one that IÂ’ve been discussing on a different board that I feel deserves greater attention. Tell us what you think.
HereÂ’s the situation:

You are in your average amateur game of whatever level you call.
It's bottom of the 9th, 2 out, with R3 only in a 5-5 tie. F1, with a live ball, takes the rubber in the windup position with hands in glove at his chest and looks in for signs, but his catcher who is crouched is lookin' to his dugout. While R3 is standing on 3B, both he and the batter are looking to 3B coach for offensive signs. PU is ready to go.........

F1, in his impatience, either:
drops his hands to his sides without disengaging, or
disengages forward and starts to do a little housework on his landing area.

While the action of the pitcher is technically a violation of the written rules,
do score a run on such technical violation of the written rule?

Do you call this a balk in your game, or do you ignore the pitcherÂ’s actions?
Why or why not?

IMO we need to look at why Balk rules were created in the first place.

The rule makers allow B1 to Overrun first base in order to make the play close or another way to put it is make the game more exciting.

In line with the aforementioned, the rule-makers also wanted stealing to be part of the game and again make the game more exciting.

Therefore, the Balk rules for the most part pertain to the stealing part of the game. There are LEGAL and ILLEGAL ways in which F1 may try and pickoff a runner.

There are also the TECHNICAL Balks and IMO should be called when the Offense is paying attention. In other words do not allow F1 to pull a fast one and gain an advantage when he /she commits an illegal act.

However, in your scenario, the offense wasn't paying attention and therefore, I would NOT call a Balk. The game is for the players to decide not some TECHNICAL rule violation and as Garth said this similar type of scenario was brought up in Carl's book 50 ways to ruin a baseball game.

Summary - NO CALL

Pete Booth

[GarthB]

"The "Do not pitch" signal as officially named, can be found on page 72 of the 2003 NFHS. The ball is dead."

Sorry, Jicecone...no offense intended. I have gotten too use to some OBR partners putting their hand up to stop a pitch, but not calling time and and thinking that covers everything, only to have a real Sh*thouse when someone tries to steal or the pitcher then throws to a base.

Some of them have no clue as to how to the handle the coach that comes out of the dugout either complaining that no time was called or that time was called. (depending on the dugout, of course.)

If I want "time", I call time. The hand signal, even in FED should not be used alone.

[jicecone]

I won't disagree with that. Knowing how and when it should be used takes time. However, if used correctly it can be quite effective. Especially in the situation you described.

To each his own!!!!!

[Bfair]

Originally posted by GarthB
Steve:

Why are you so specific in stating the inning, the outs and the score? That seems to suggest that you think the answer to your question would differ under other circumstances. Personally, I think that is dangerous.

Garth, the scenario was set for no specific purpose other than to present a situation. I don't believe the umpire's decision should vary here be it the top of first inning or the bottom of the last inning.

The goal of the game is for players to score runs.
The rules exist to support the game.
The game does not exist to support the rules.
Calling a balk in this situation is putting the cart before the horse; the rule before the game.

IMO, the written rules related to this situation were established to prevent the pitcher from deceiving his opponent into thinking he was starting his delivery when, in fact, he was not. While the written rule was violated, the spirit and intent of the rule was not. The pitcher had no intent on starting his delivery, he had no intent on deceiving runners, and most importantly, his actions deceived nobody. He gained no advantage---intended or unintended. Nothing within the goals of the game or how it should be played fairly has been violated---only a written rule.

While complete expectations of knowledge and talent might be expected of players at a professional level, I feel it highly overofficious to balk this action at amateur levels. On another board a poster stated that heÂ’d guess 99 of 100 officials at the collegiate level would not call this balk. I agree wholeheartedly. The reason I agree with him is that if those collegiate umpires had not learned somewhere earlier in their career to overlook this type of action, then they wouldnÂ’t be umpiring in that collegiate game. TheyÂ’d have been considered overofficious by their supervisors and left in the dust long ago by those better understanding the value of the game and the purpose of the rules.

Furthermore, this situation is not just “missed.” It’s not one that’s occurring so rapidly and followed by continued play that it gets overlooked by error. No, when this one isn’t called it’s due to choice----not error. The official has chosen not to nitpick a rule that has not been violated in spirit and intent.

This situation presented is one that I see regularly at HS and adult levels (which include many college players). That is, a situation of F1 being ready to play---holding a live ball---but then disengaging improperly when others do not appear ready to initiate play. I’ve also had many F1’s merely adjust their cap or wipe sweat from their brow while on the rubber, holding a live ball while waiting for others to ready themselves for play. It’s hardly “red herring” situation.
I find it difficult to believe it only happens to me.
ItÂ’s also amazing that the many times IÂ’ve not called such action a balk, neither has my partner.

I have never called it a balk in this situation---and more importantly---I never will..
For the many times it has occurred, I have never once been questioned as to why a balk was not called. Any opponent asking for this balk is apt to have his monkey and cup at his side.
While Tee states elsewhere that he doesnÂ’t call balks unless all see itÂ…Â…Â….well, all have seen this action.
ItÂ’s just that not all, in fact very few, have seen this action as a balkÂ…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…Â…..


Just my opinion,

Freix

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Jim Mills
Interesting. About this same time last year, the same type of issue was debated on another board (i.e., do you grant the appeal of a missed home plate on a walk-off HR.) The question is whether you call a technical violation that you determine does not result in an advantage.

Excellent points to compare, Jim................

IMO, the primary goals of the game include:

1. Offensively, to advance to score runs by hitting the ball and touching all bases before being retired, and
   
2. Defensively, to retire the offense before they can score.

Added to support that goal are the varying rules regarding how that is to be accomplished fairly. Many rules have evolved from attempts of one team to gain an advantage over another which the rulesmakers did not originally intend on occurring. Some of those advantages---specific to your question and this thread---deal with missed bases and balks.

It's obvious the bases were meant to be touched. That's why the rules require they be touched even on awards. Afterall, after a home run they could merely add the score if touching of the bases was not included in the primary goal of the game. Still, it also became apparent that proper touching of the bases didn't always occur. The rules of appeal are a tool for the defense to assure that primary goal of touching the bases is adhered to. IMO, the official should not withhold that tool from the defense when they properly wish to use it---even when a base was missed only by an inch. If the official is aware that the defense has properly used their tool, he should support their awareness within the game that the offense did not meet that primary objective of touching the bases as required.

Balks were established to prevent a pitcher from deceiving the offense into believing he was doing one thing when,in fact, he wasn't. The rules set limits of legality to prevent such deception. Addressing deception in written word is not quite as easy as addressing a black/white judgment of whether a base was or was not touched. Unfortunately, that written word can sometimes encompass situations not meant to be encompassed within the rule. Balks are also established as punitive measures for when a the defense has done something not deemed legal which infringes upon the game (Ref: delay of game, rule 7.07).

In the case of a base not being touch, the intent of the rule has been infringed upon. In the case of the pitcher improperly disengaging while holding a live ball and waiting for the offense to prepare to play, the intent of the rule has not been infinged upon when the offense has not been deceived nor has tried to be deceived.

That is what I see as a significant difference..........


Just my opinion,

Freix