Catcher's balk
 

What are the provisions of a homeplate umpire calling a catchers balk? I saw two of these during a high school game yesterday.

1-1-4. At TOP all fielders in fair territory and F2 in catcher's box. Penalty is IP.

A booger not usually picked.

That's two too many. Don't do it.

Only called one in my life, and it ended the game, and was obvious. Pitcher could have prevented it. The provisions are, that if you see an obvious one, call it, but it should be rare. Two in one game would be very, very rare.

What are the dimensions of the catchers box?

Under OBR, all you need is catcher interference with a runner from 3rd trying to score on a steal or squeeze.

43" in FED if they have been drawn right. Don't remember the depth but doubt it is of interest. Interestingly, there is no front line. The catcher is limited by other rules there. But why are you calling it a Catcher's Balk? It's a balk on the pitcher for starting to pitch with a fielder or catcher not in the proper position. Any catcher setting up for the outside pitch will probably have a foot outside the box. The catcher's technique of extending one leg straight out to get lower also violates this rule. It should not be something an umpire should look to call.

The front of the box is the point of the plate - and it's 8' back from there. See the diagram 2 and rule 2-9-3.

i'm guessing these umps also didn't let the pitcher throw any warmups because it was 63 seconds since the 3rd out of the last half-inning

Maybe we should hear from ONETIME1 on the circumstances that resulted in the two calls. The one I was thinking of is when the PITCHER is called for a balk when the catcher steps out of the catcher's box when an intentional walk is being done. Don't know why this would happen in FED game since you don't have to pitch to batter, just send him.

It is sometimes called a catcher's balk by some because he caused it, but it is a balk on the pitcher.

If they were playing under FED, why not use IBB?

Those who call that play a catcher's balk are just wrong. dash_riprock described it correctly--a 7.07 infraction. It's when a balk is called on the pitcher due to a violation committed by the catcher.

When F1 delivers with F2 out of his box, F1 committed the violation regardless of who "caused" it. I've never called that balk it in my life and (probably) never will.

The Fed rule is not the same as OBR. Any fielder or catcher that is not where they are supposed to be at TOP for any pitch will be in violation of this rule. (Fielders only have to have one foot fair). Fed actually is more lenient in the literal rule since the catcher can step out on any pitch including an IBB just after TOP. OBR is more restrictive in the rule on an IBB but less so in practice. So, we need ONETIMES explanation of what actually happened.
A catcher's or fielder's balk should be rarely called (on the pitcher) in FED. I would say never but maybe somebody can give me an example of why it would be called.

You talk about looking for trouble. You call this at any level and you'll never live it down. Talk about preventive officiating this is the classic case. Have the stop sign up and get the catcher back in the box. Pretty simple.

So is the rule one foot in the catchers box or must both feet be in the catchers box?

Hmm,
 

41 years of umpiring, 4002 games . . . never saw a catcher's box called by any umpire.

Watch which end of the stick you pick up.

T

Tee saw one

In July of 2000 - Braves vs. Brewers. Home Plate Umpire John Shulock called a rear catcher's balk on Fernando Lunar the back up F2 for the Braves. Of Coarse Mr. Bobby Cox was tossed.

Pete Booth

You aren't listening. The "rule" is - don't even think of calling it. If there's a real problem in the making fix it first.

Called it my first year of umpiring - Rec U12 game. I had just reviewed that section of the Rules so I was "ready". Defensive coach lit me up pretty good, although ultimately agreed I was technically correct. Never called it again. Will never call it again :o

After applying this method to one catcher, he still didn't understand what I was talking about. It's no fun to be in slot on a RH hitter, the catcher moves, and is stationed in the LH batters box.

Thus a balk became a necessity.

I called it once about 25 years ago. In a rec game, catcher moved forward and was in front of the plate at TOP trying to get a jump on a stealing runner.

Agree this is a rule you should know for the test, then forget on the field.

I think I would have had CI (FED catcher's obstruction) on that if the pitch was made. But, that's an interesting timing question. I would never think to call that a balk because I'm about to call CI. If you do call the balk and F1 stops his delivery I guess all you have is a balk. If the pitcher delivers what do you have?

Given that the number of times I've called the catcher for being out of the box is zero, and the number of times I plan on calling it the rest of my career is zero, and the prevailing opinion here is that zero is the number of the counting and the number of the count shall be zero...

I have int or obs (depending on code) on the catcher.

Call CI and send the batter to 1B. If the runner was attempting to steal home THEN add the balk (7.07)

After saying "zero," proceed directly to "zero."

Two is right out.

Thus saith the prophet Mike, and all Mike's people said Amen and Amen!:cool:

What's a "catcher's balk"? And here dummy me thought only the pitcher can balk.

What's next, a "fielder's balk"? :confused:

It's a balk charged to the pitcher for an illegal action by the catcher. It is really just a means to advance all runners one base. Perhaps it would be less confusing had MLB written 7.07 to say "all runners shall be awarded one base" instead of "the pitcher shall be charged with a balk," because the pitcher hasn't balked at all. In fact, it's not a balk until after the pitcher has released the pitch.

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.

Some have tried to interpret a fielder not being in the field of play at the time of pitch, as being one.:confused:

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.

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


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? ;)

I've experienced that--years ago when I had a partner who was so balk happy that I think that's how he conceived his 3 kids--he yelled "Balk!" in bed and...well...the rest was history.

He used to call a balk everytime the first baseman had a foot in foul territory when the pitcher pitched, except that it wasn't a balk; it was just "nothing," literally. The pitcher's not supposed to pitch unless, with the exception of the catcher, all fielders are in fair territory. If he does, nothing happens.

PLAY (NCAA & OBR): We begin the top of the 4th inning when the visiting team's batter comes to the plate. Pitcher throws the first pitch for a strike. Suddenly, a player from the home team runs out to right field. It is then that everyone realizes the right fielder hadn't been out there. RULING: Nullify the pitch and begin again. Because the home team did not have their required number of players on the field to comprise a legally constituted team (9 players in NCAA & OBR), no action could legally take place.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Have you ever enforced this?

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.

You're misreading the rule. According to someone whom I asked in the NCAA, I was told that "because the legally required number of players were not on the field at the time the pitcher pitched, no action can take place. Therefore, nullify anything that did occur and replay the pitch." He referenced the Penalty under Rule 4c, which states the umpire should not put the ball back into play unless all fielders other than the catcher are in fair territory. If he does, there is no penalty per se because he wasn't supposed to have put the ball into play. Consequently, what did happen is nullified.

This is the ruling in OBR, BTW.

At the risk of stating the obvious and belaboring the issue, no, I didn't misread the rule which says in part, "The play, if it benefits the defense, shall be nullified."

If somebody at the NCAA would like it called differently than written, it isn't the first (or last) time that the written rules don't correspond to the way the game should actually be called.

I read the penalty as referring to something else and not the situation where one of the required 7 other fielders (catcher not included here) was not in fair territory. Regardless, it's probably not very clear, which isn't uncommon.

On fair ground

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?

Take two prescribed pills and try again in the morning.

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