I fully agree with you Bob. When I first started officiating, I was told many times that if it looks weird, it's probably a balk. These scenarios are weird looking whether it is a RHP or LHP, and for certain, one partner is going to be calling, "Balk".

I don't understand why disengaging the rubber on the moves isn't a rule across the board in all rule sets. Pitcher still has to disengage, and re-toe the rubber anyway.......hopefully, bluehair can talk me through it.

Then that would be a balk, although any R1 who gets picked on that move probably deserves what he gets.

If your going to come on here and start talking logical, I will immediately recommend your removable.

I would disagree with that statement, and that training.

Funny. I recently added ST to my ignore list (actually he's the only one in there). I doubt he can sustain any kind of "talking logical" pattern...but I'll never know.

Worst advice ever. I'm sure you've discarded that since then.

Sorry guys I should have cleared that up. I never accepted it to begin with.

I subscribe to the school of, if you can't explain why you just called a Balk, then it is obvious that you don't know enough about the subject to be calling a Balk.

Absotively.

You're taking it too literally.

With every pitch, do you tell yourself, "That was not a balk"?

No! You don't. And that's because nothing looks unusual about it.

It doesn't even occur to you to call a balk.

But, when something looks odd, even if at the very instant it occurs you could not immediately say WHY it's a balk - your mind is racing to determine why, indeed, it is a balk. What sets our brain in motion is precisely because "it looks wrong".

The key is that you have to be able to intelligently and properly articulate why it was a balk once you call it.

SIDENOTE: Whenever I'm a BU, with a runner on 1st, I have to confess that I do, specifically, tell myself "That was not a balk" - especially if the pitcher has already demonstrated that he is on the edge legality.

Nope and nope.

If it's "odd" I do ask, "Was that legal or not?" but that's not the same as trying to determine "why, indeed, it is a balk."

And, I know how to articulate it BEFORE I call it.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? You don't ask yourself, "Was that legal or not?" if it doesn't look odd - do you?

That's my point! Our experience tells us - "That's not right." In the next instant, we quickly figure out why it's not right.

Whether you realize it or not - there are many balks when there is a period of time (maybe 1-sec, maybe 3-secs) between you noticing that "it didn't look right" and when you can say exactly why it's a balk.

Obviously, there are some balks that simply call themselves - the more common ones - like failure to pause in the set position - not completing a throw to 1st without disengaging - dropping the ball while engaged with the rubber - starting to deliver and then stopping. But there is a host of less common balks (call them unusual or unexpected balks) that can occur and, when you see them, the reason doesn't immediately occur to you, but the fact that it "looked wrong" does immediately occur to you. Your mind races - you realize why it was wrong - and you call "Balk!" It all starts because "it looked wrong".

I'm not saying that if "it looks wrong" it's a balk. I'm saying that if "it looks wrong" that's when your brain starts considering that it might be a balk.

I've seen a pitcher do something odd - I can't see why it was illegal. I call nothing. My partner and I look at one another as if to see, "That was weird" - yet neither of us called a balk because, as we replay what the pitcher did in our head, we can't see what he did wrong.

There is a pitcher around here who, on occasion, does not go through his normal wind-up routine. He just gets the signal and throws it. He may even do this with a runner on base. The runner sees the pitcher on the rubber as if he is going to pitch from the wind-up. The runner thinks the pitcher forgot that there is a runner on base. The runner decides to take advantage of the situation and breaks on the delivery. But there's no wind-up. The pitcher delivers the ball almost as quickly from this position as he does from the set position. It looks very odd. It looks wrong. But it's completely legal.

This isn't the hybrid position that was discused in the POE this year was it?

No, he positions his feet legally.

If I recall, the POE illegal position was to toe the rubber with your pivot foot as if you were going to pitcher from the wind-up position, but the free foot is in front of the rubber, as if to pitcher from the set position.

His free foot is behind the rubber. Totally legal. He just doesn't do any wind-up. No rocker step. Nothing. He just steps and throws.

There's no rule that says you have to use the same pitching motion each time. You don't have to have a wind-up. Usually, he throws a pitch out so the catcher can throw the runner out stealing.

Yeah, but he had to send me a private message so I could walk him through the process.