|
|||
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
__________________
"That's all I have to say about that." |
|
|||
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Elaborate, please.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Rich Ives Different does not equate to wrong |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"Let's face it. Umpiring is not an easy or happy way to make a living. In the abuse they suffer, and the pay they get for it, you see an imbalance that can only be explained by their need to stay close to a game they can't resist." -- Bob Uecker |
|
|||
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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 was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
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.
__________________
When in doubt, bang 'em out! Ozzy |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Substitution on Overturned HR | yawetag | Baseball | 7 | Tue Sep 13, 2011 07:19am |
NU v. Creighton Overturned call | SperlingPE | Baseball | 1 | Fri May 20, 2005 08:51pm |
CWS ejection overturned | tornado | Baseball | 13 | Wed Jun 30, 2004 04:38pm |
Potential for overturned decision | sout bay 101 | Basketball | 5 | Sun Feb 01, 2004 11:59pm |
Worst rule later overturned? | utex | Basketball | 21 | Mon May 06, 2002 11:10pm |