balk vs illegal pitch [FED]

[David Emerling]

We just had the mandatory state meeting the other night. The big wig who usually makes the presentation, at one point, gave an example of a pitcher stumbling while making his delivery (with no runners on base) and not delivering the ball. He said, "That's nothin'!"

Most agreed and nodded. In fact, I've seen that many times and I have never made any call. Nobody ever complains.

But then a discussion arose that, in FED (unlike OBR), any pitching infraction that would have normally been ruled a balk had there been runners on base, should be penalized as a "ball".

For instance, let's say that the pitcher elects to pitch from the set position at all times. Should we require him to come to a discernible stop even when there are no runners on base? If so, what if he doesn't? Should we call a "ball" each time he fails to come to a discernible stop?

PLAY: Nobody on base. Game tied. Last inning. No outs. Full count on the batter. As the pitcher begins his wind-up he catches his spikes on the rubber, stumbles, and aborts his delivery. The coach from the team at-bat wants the umpire to call that "pitch" a ball. Obviously, it would be nice to get the lead-off man on base in such a close game. He insists that this is a rule issue and has nothing to do with judgment.

Just looking for opinions. Thanks!

[scrounge]

This one is explicitly covered under the rules. 6-1-3 covers the set position and says what the penalty is with and without runners. Yea, by rule it's an illegal pitch and should get called a ball. Reality? I wouldn't call it without at least sending out the catcher to tell him to stop or otherwise warning him. Maybe nothing if it's close or it's lower level ball where someone just doesn't know what they're doing.

And 6-1-4 covers the aborted delivery situation. If you judge it as a dropped ball, then with no runners it's a nothing if it doesn't cross the foul lines.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by scrounge

And 6-1-4 covers the aborted delivery situation. If you judge it as a dropped ball, then with no runners it's a nothing if it doesn't cross the foul lines.

I'm talking about an aborted delivery where the pitcher never releases the ball at all - a fairly common occurrence. I see it at least a few times each season.

[bluehair]

OC has put PU between a rock and a hard spot. The question becomes, do you want to risk having a rule violation protest uphold on your resume or make an OOO (by the book) call. Neither is desirable but you have to choose one.

I would risk of a rule protest uphold. I think it would be easier to explain than making the OOO call, it is righteous (IMO), and I don’t ever want to hear anyone tell the story about the time I called a ball in this situation. I want to hear the story about the time when I refused to be hood-winked into making an OOO call.

[CT1]

No runners? No delivery? Nuttin', honey.

[maven]

I'm happy to risk a protest. My state does not allow them.

The penalty for rule 6, articles 1, 2, and 3 states:

"The ball is dead immediately when an illegal pitch
occurs. If there is no runner, a ball is awarded the batter. If there is a runner,
such illegal act is a balk. In both situations, the umpire signals dead ball."

If F1 fails to release the ball, I'd rule no pitch: thus it cannot be an illegal pitch. If he does release the ball, 6-1-4 applies (ball if it crosses the foul line, otherwise no pitch).

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by maven

If F1 fails to release the ball, I'd rule no pitch: thus it cannot be an illegal pitch.

Interesting...so are you are saying that "it's nothing" IS a judgement call, not a rule violation ?

That might work on a coach, but I can't buy it. 6.1.2 ...With his feet in the wind-up position, the pitcher may only deliver a pitch or step back... And the penalty for violating 6.1.x has been stated.

I am going with "its nothing" also. But I'm doing so knowing that it's outside of the rules.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by maven

I'm happy to risk a protest. My state does not allow them.

Yup.

[Tim C]

"No runners? No delivery? Nuttin', honey."

In NFHS rules the "start/stop" movement is not allowed.

When Rumble first referred to the play fe "called it" a balk . . . since that time it has been consider, with no runners on, a violation and should be called.

By reading the OP is "appears" this activity as described by Mr. Emerling falls into at least a start/stop violation.

T

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Tim C

In NFHS rules the "start/stop" movement is not allowed.

When Rumble first referred to the play fe "called it" a balk . . . since that time it has been consider, with no runners on, a violation and should be called.

By reading the OP is "appears" this activity as described by Mr. Emerling falls into at least a start/stop violation.

T

This is one I'll happily ignore, too.

[bob jenkins]

It gets called here. :shrug:

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Tim C

In NFHS rules the "start/stop" movement is not allowed.

When Rumble first referred to the play fe "called it" a balk . . . since that time it has been consider, with no runners on, a violation and should be called.

By reading the OP is "appears" this activity as described by Mr. Emerling falls into at least a start/stop violation.

T

Many of Mr. Rumble's "curious" interps have either been reinterpreted, or simply ignored.

[ozzy6900]

As Tim C pointed out, the OP is start & stop. It is a violation of pitching rules and is a ball with no runners on, a balk with runners. Yes, it's nice to say that you will ignore this, or call no pitch but then..... what other rules are you choosing not to enforce?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

As Tim C pointed out, the OP is start & stop. It is a violation of pitching rules and is a ball with no runners on, a balk with runners. Yes, it's nice to say that you will ignore this, or call no pitch but then..... what other rules are you choosing not to enforce?

Not that canard again. We *all* choose to not enforce everything according to the letter of the law.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by Rich

Not that canard again. We *all* choose to not enforce everything according to the letter of the law.

Try not to be a total dolt, Rich. You know perfectly well what I am saying.