Balk or not

[UmpJM]

I believe clevbrown's fundamental misunderstanding is that he does not understand that, in this play, 2B is considered an "occupied base" because that was the base R2 was entitled to when F1 engaged the rubber.

Even though R2 had "taken off" to 3B at the time of F1's feint to 2B, for purposes of the rule, 2B is still considered an "occupied base".

JM

[clevbrown]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

I believe clevbrown's fundamental misunderstanding is that he does not understand that, in this play, 2B is considered an "occupied base" because that was the base R2 was entitled to when F1 engaged the rubber.

Even though R2 had "taken off" to 3B at the time of F1's feint to 2B, for purposes of the rule, 2B is still considered an "occupied base".

JM

Actually, I understand which base is occupied. My problem is I did not understand that a pitcher can step toward a base with his non pivot foot and still be considered stepping off the rubber. I thought the pitcher had to disengage from the rubber with his pivot foot and step behind the rubber.

What I have learned from everyone on this page is once a pitcher steps towards an occupied base and removes his pivot foot from the rubber, he is now a fielder and can throw anywhere he wants. Thanks to everyone for helping me understand this.

One follow up question...
Runner on 2nd, pitcher in the stretch, runner breaks for 3rd, can the pitcher step toward 3rd and throw to third since he is "attempting to put out a runner"? Per the rules, it appears the answer is yes he can. However, I hear a lot of people say he cannot.

[UmpJM]

clev,

Yes, he can.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by clevbrown

One follow up question...
Runner on 2nd, pitcher in the stretch, runner breaks for 3rd, can the pitcher step toward 3rd and throw to third since he is "attempting to put out a runner"? Per the rules, it appears the answer is yes he can. However, I hear a lot of people say he cannot.

Yes he can, and your reasoning is correct. In my experience, the balk rules are the weakest area of rules knowledge for many "veteran" umpires. You'll be better off doing what you're doing: study the rules for yourself, and then you can help out some of your "more experienced" partners.

[gordon30307]

Never seen a balk on a pick off at second nor have I heard of one called. It might be possible but I can't think of how it would be committed.

[UmpJM]

gordon,

Heck, D-backs F1 Brad Ziegler did it just a couple of weeks ago in the playoff against the Brewers.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | ARI@MIL Gm 2: Brewers score five runs in the sixth - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

(Around the 20-second mark.)

Of course, the IITBTSB dogmatists will come up with some specious semantic argument that the balk was for "...failure to deliver a pitch without interruption after having made a move which committed him..." or some such nonsense.

But, in the real world, it's "a balk to second base".

It's not impossible, it's just really hard.

JM

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

gordon,

Heck, D-backs F1 Brad Ziegler did it just a couple of weeks ago in the playoff against the Brewers.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | ARI@MIL Gm 2: Brewers score five runs in the sixth - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

(Around the 20-second mark.)

Of course, the IITBTSB dogmatists will come up with some specious semantic argument that the balk was for "...failure to deliver a pitch without interruption after having made a move which committed him..." or some such nonsense.

But, in the real world, it's "a balk to second base".

It's not impossible, it's just really hard.

JM

Yeah you can drop the ball or commit to the plate and it is indeed a balk. Give me a way to commit a balk other than above.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Of course, the IITBTSB dogmatists will come up with some specious semantic argument that the balk was for "...failure to deliver a pitch without interruption after having made a move which committed him..." or some such nonsense.

JM

JM, I'm curious why you regard this argument as either specious or semantic.

But in any case, disputes about IITBTSB are moot and miss the point of the "dogma."

[UmpJM]

Michael,

The only explanation I've ever come across that describes the "point of the dogma" is that it somehow facilitates the learning of the balk rules.

That never made sense to me.

Perhaps there's another "point" of which I am unaware?

JM

[Tim C]

JM:

I am not at all a "dogmatist" . . . what I am is someone that can look at a situation and make common sense.

The balk in the video was for failing to complete the pitch as it has nothing to do with balking "to" second base.

Remember (and I know you "get it") while it is impossible to balk top an occupied second base there can be balk while second base is occupied.

I will remind everyone: if you accept IIITBTSB and teach it you will eliminate phantom balks that are called by some of the people that post here.

T

It must be nonsense because you say it is . . . I expect better from you.

[Tim C]

JM,

Unlike you I have personally seen a BU call a balk for F1 tossing to F6 not near the base.

I have seen a BU call a balk on F1 who turned to throw to second base but the runner had already headed to third . . . yep, a balk for throwing to an unoccupied base.

We also SEVERAL times over the past ten years enough questions have been brought to umpire websites where there are questions about "balks to second" that are not that.

I stand by what we teach.

T

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Unlike you I have personally seen a BU call a balk for F1 tossing to F6 not near the base.

I've seen it more than once when I played adult ball. Those guys don't usually know their elbow from a hole in the ground.