Balk or not

[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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

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

Tee gave it: eliminate phantom balks.

Now perhaps you'd answer my question?

[UmpJM]

Tim and Michael,

I characterized the "philosophy" as "dogmatist", and the argument "specious and semantic" because:

1. The pitcher in the video clearly and unequivocally balked while attempting to make a pick-off move on the R2. (I say it this way because I expect that neither of you would disagree with this way of characterizing it.)

2. The pitcher's initial movement did NOT commit him exclusively to delivering a pitch. It committed him to either delivering a pitch OR making a pick-off move to 2B. Had there been an R3 - or had the R2 been advancing - he would have also had the legal option of making a move to 3B.

3. And, to be honest about it, I was intentionally being "provocative". Hey, sometimes I just can't help it.

In my experience (which I stipulate is significantly less than either of yours), I have never seen a "phantom balk" called on a pitcher making a move towards 2B - though, to be fair, I have seen a number of coaches who wanted such a call, typically because the move was "awkward".

Balks are the hardest calls for newer umpires to make. I can't help wondering if the practical effect of teaching the IITBTSB philosophy is that it makes umpires hesitant to call balks that ARE committed rather than reducing phantom calls.

JM

[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

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by clevbrown

Not sure what you mean Rich. I agree 3rd base is not occupied. My feeling is the pitcher must step towards the base he is throwing to regardless if it is occupied or not. I think the pitcher cannot step toward 2nd, then throw to 3rd.

Ask yourself ... if he hadn't thrown to third, would you have a balk for the feint toward 2nd? (I'm hoping your answer is no.)
Now ask yourself - are there any restrictions regarding throwing the ball once the pitcher has legally disengaged? (Again, hoping the answer is no)

So now what do you have?

[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.

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Tim and Michael,

2. The pitcher's initial movement did NOT commit him exclusively to delivering a pitch. It committed him to either delivering a pitch OR making a pick-off move to 2B. Had there been an R3 - or had the R2 been advancing - he would have also had the legal option of making a move to 3B.

JM

J.M.

I respectively disagree, he most clearly commited himself to the pitch. He did not step directly toward second base. This balk is/was taught at at the college level. It's an effective balk move that a pitcher can get away with and often do. Just as the jump turn is more times than not a balk, that rarely gets called. This picher clearly brings his leg up then half to three quarters down before he changes direction toward 2B. Absouletly a balk. I was one of those that would argue you could balk to 2B. In reality you can't. I agree with the others, the balk had nothing to do with 2B.

[Steven Tyler]

Jouquin Benoit did a jump turn in the playoffs against the Rangers and it wasn't called.

Bring on the Cardinals anyway.

OTOH-Get rid of that stupid rule about home team advantage in the World Series. As hard as they try, the All-Star game sucks for the most part. Getting less entertaining than the Pro Bowl that not many players want to play in.

[clevbrown]

Thanks guys for the feedback. I am learning a lot about balks this season and I appreciate your help.

An observation regarding the video, the announcer kept saying the balk was called because of the hesitation. I really thought the balk should have been because he did not step toward 2nd or home. Instead he stepped with his left foot about 6 inches from the rubber toward the 3rd base side. At that point he had not disengaged from the rubber with his pivot foot. So, I would call balk for not stepping toward ho e or 2nd. Would that make sense?

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Jouquin Benoit did a jump turn in the playoffs against the Rangers and it wasn't called.

It wasn't a balk.