Overturned Balk
 

I don't think I have ever seen a balk overturned but here it is.

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | TB@CWS: Run comes off board after umps reverse call - Video | MLB.com: Multimedia

Ooooh, I think the balk call was justified.

On the fake-to-third/fake-to-first move, the pitcher should disengage the rubber while he makes the initial step to third base so that, as the announcer said, he "just becomes another fielder" when he fakes to first. But this F1 never really disengaged. In fact, it looked to me like he executed a jab-step move to first after the fake to third, and a jab-step is considered a move from the rubber.

I don't know what the rest of the crew told U1 to convince him the call should be reversed. IMO, he made the right call.

As luck would have it, I just watched the Jim Evans balk video last night.
I don't think it was a balk.

Elaborate, please.

What rule, specifically, was broken? I see no balk here either.

The closest thing to a balk might be that he didn't gain (enough?) ground toward third on the first move. However, I don't think that is what U1 called, given the timing of the call. Looks like he's balking the move to first - and at the point of the move to 1st, the pivot foot has already come off.

PS - can't be a jabstep ... he's already an infielder after not throwing to third.

Once completing the fake to 3B he completed the requirement to step off, throw(fake) or pitch. The "pitch" sequence is over.

This is why MLB is discussing a change in the rule.

But when he made his fake to third, he never disengaged his pivot foot from the rubber. His subsequent move to first looked just like a jab-step, because the pivot foot disengaged simultaneously as he was making the move to first. At least that's how it looked to me.

From 8.05(c): "However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.

This pither, IMO, did not step off the rubber before making the move to first. He started his move to first with a jab-step, which comes simultaneously with the move.

The back foot clearly disengages the rubber before the feint to 1st. I think what makes the play look odd to some people is that during the feint to 3rd, there is no accompanting arm action. According to Jim Evans, this is not a requirement. An odd-looking play from the mound does not always equal a balk.

Next year this will be a balk in MLB if I read correctly. So use it while you can.

I honestly have no idea what you're looking at. Look at where his foot is at 1:04 and 1:05 of the video. Pretty standard disengagement there.

If it was standard, why did U1 balk it? :p

Seriously, it looked way too much like a jab-step. Most fake-to-third/fake-to-first moves I've seen have F1 disengaging the pivot foot during the step to third base, well before they turn to go to first.

You can't jap step if you've already stepped to another base to feint a pickoff move. A jab step is to first base and is used in a regular pickoff at first when you have an R1 only.

This is not a balk. How much more do you want him to disengage it before he turns to first base? There isn't a specified distance that his pivot foot must go away from the rubber. He just has to disengage, which he does.

Well.. he was wrong, wasn't he?

I'm trying hard to find "it looks like a jabstep" or even "it looks different than I'm used to" in my rulebook, and can't find it.

He CLEARLY disengages at 1:04-05 in the video. And not just by a little bit - his foot moves toward third by about half the length of the rubber. If you don't see that, I can't help you.

I can see from U1's perspective where he might not have seen F1's pivot foot move to third (and break contact with the rubber). The move was directly away from U1 and by less than "several feet" so it might have been difficult to see the distance. PU and U2 would have a good view, and that's why it was corrected.

U1 just finished backing up and then tried to peek around F3 . I don't he saw the pitcher disengage the plate and it seemed as though it was a hesitant call.

His doubt is what led to the conference.

No balk.

There was no balk here and I do not understand why all of a sudden, the 3rd to 1st move is so difficult for people and umpires to deal with. It seems that I woke up one morning and the world turned stupid! It's a legal move designed to deceive the runner at 1st and getting an out.