Catcher's balk

[mbyron]

He knows what it is. He was being facetious.

And it is an illegal act by the pitcher, namely pitching before all fielders are in their prescribed locations. The catcher being outside the box is not by itself illegal.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by mbyron

...And it is an illegal act by the pitcher, namely pitching before all fielders are in their prescribed locations...

No, it isn't. It's when F1 is charged with a balk even though he hasn't committed one.

The term is misunderstood because so many people continually present it as having to do with F2 being outside the catcher's box, resulting in F1 committing a balk.

8.05(l) does not describe the catcher's balk; 7.07 does.

If people would comprehend that it's limited to F1 being charged with a balk due to F2's CI when R3 is advancing to the plate, when F1 has not, in fact, committed a balk, the term would not be so widely misrepresented.

dash_riprock understands.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbyron

He knows what it is. He was being facetious.

Exactly. There's no such thing as a "catcher's balk."

And it is an illegal act by the pitcher, namely pitching before all fielders are in their prescribed locations. The catcher being outside the box is not by itself illegal.

It's not an "illegal act" if the pitcher pitches before all fielders are in their prescribed locations; and what, exactly, are their "prescribed locations," other than the catcher having his own--a catcher's box?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

It's not an "illegal act" if the pitcher pitches before all fielders are in their prescribed locations; and what, exactly, are their "prescribed locations," other than the catcher having his own--a catcher's box?

Of course it's an illegal act: it's a BALK, 2.00, "an illegal act by the pitcher with a runner or runners on base..."

According to 4.03 all fielders other than F2 must be in fair territory before the ball is made live, but the only penalty is stated in 4.03(a) when the pitcher pitches with F2 out of position. The penalty for the pitcher's act is a balk.

[UMP25]

Reread my statement. It is NOT an "illegal act" if the pitcher pitches when a fielder other than the catcher is not in fair territory. You're thinking of a balk; I'm not referring to that.

[Dave Reed]

I'm not sure what you mean by "not an 'illegal act'", but in NCAA, the penalty for pitching with any fielder outside fair territory is to nullify the play if it benefited the defense. 5-4c Penalty. So I'd say it is an illegal act.

[UMP25]

Which is what my aforementioned play/ruling discussed. It's essentially a "nothing counts" situation.

I think some folks look at the pitcher committing an "illegal act" to mean that he directly and unilaterally and intentionally does something not legal. I was referring to "illegal act" meaning something more direct, akin to defacing the ball, faking to first from the rubber, etc.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Dave Reed

I'm not sure what you mean by "not an 'illegal act'", but in NCAA, the penalty for pitching with any fielder outside fair territory is to nullify the play if it benefited the defense. 5-4c Penalty. So I'd say it is an illegal act.

Have you ever enforced this?

[Dave Reed]

MrUmpire,
I've never seen it in game.

UMP25,
It is not a "nothing counts" situation. If the outcome of the play is favorable to the offense, they get to keep the result.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by UMP25

what, exactly, are their "prescribed locations,"

On fair ground

[UMP25]

I've got to stop posting on here. No one seems to know what facetiousness or sarcasm is.

[yawetag]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I've got to stop posting on here. No one seems to know what facetiousness or sarcasm is.

I sense sarcasm here. Or is it facetiousness?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I've got to stop posting on here. No one seems to know what facetiousness or sarcasm is.

Take two prescribed pills and try again in the morning.

[UMP25]

I'd rather take proscribed pills; those are much more fun.