F3 foot in foul territory

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by Publius

If you had a nickel for every umpire who thinks he knows what the 'catcher's balk' describes, but really doesn't, you'd have several thousand dollars.

What umpire doesn't have the imagination to figure out that it describes 4.03(a)...the only way F2 can cause a balk...he'd should still be nickel-less.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by bluehair

What umpire doesn't have the imagination to figure out that it describes 4.03(a)...the only way F2 can cause a balk...he'd should still be nickel-less.

It's not the only way - see 7.07.

[bluehair]

I am old enough to know better than to use absolutes when in haste. Good catch.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Publius

If you had a nickel for every umpire who thinks he knows what the 'catcher's balk' describes, but really doesn't, you'd have several thousand dollars.

True!

[Publius]

Originally Posted by bluehair

What umpire doesn't have the imagination to figure out that it describes 4.03(a)...the only way F2 can cause a balk...he'd should still be nickel-less.

You just demonstrated my point.

In 4.03(a), the pitcher has committed a balk. Whether the catcher "caused" it is immaterial to the fact that the infraction was committed by the pitcher

7.07 is the so-called "catcher's balk", wherein the pitcher has not committed a balk, but is charged with one anyway due to illegal action by the catcher.

Five cents, please.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Publius

You just demonstrated my point.

In 4.03(a), the pitcher has committed a balk. Whether the catcher "caused" it is immaterial to the fact that the infraction was committed by the pitcher

7.07 is the so-called "catcher's balk", wherein the pitcher has not committed a balk, but is charged with one anyway due to illegal action by the catcher.

Five cents, please.

Sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other. In both cases, the pitcher should not release the ball if he sees the catcher violating the rule. But not releasing would still be a balk. Good luck with that. In 7.07 if he has already released the ball it's unfair that he gets the balk. OBR doesn't care. They need a way to advance all runners.
But, back to the real world.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Publius

You just demonstrated my point.

In 4.03(a), the pitcher has committed a balk. Whether the catcher "caused" it is immaterial to the fact that the infraction was committed by the pitcher

7.07 is the so-called "catcher's balk", wherein the pitcher has not committed a balk, but is charged with one anyway due to illegal action by the catcher.

Five cents, please.

The catcher flat out causes a 4.03( a ) balk. If the pitcher pitches after the catcher leaves the box it's a balk. If the pitcher stops because the catcher left the box, it's a balk. Either way - the catcher caused it. It is impossible for the pitcher to avoid it. Ain't his fault.

All (ALL) balks are charged to the pitcher.

And, BTW, the 4.03(a) one is the one called a catcher's balk. Most folks never heard of 7.07.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Publius

You just demonstrated my point.

In 4.03(a), the pitcher has committed a balk. Whether the catcher "caused" it is immaterial to the fact that the infraction was committed by the pitcher

7.07 is the so-called "catcher's balk", wherein the pitcher has not committed a balk, but is charged with one anyway due to illegal action by the catcher.

Five cents, please.

I disagree. FWIW, if I, or any real non-internet umpire I come across says "catcher's balk", we are referring to 4.03a. And FWIW, I can't recall 7.07 ever happening in a game I umpired or watched.

[Publius]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I disagree. FWIW, if I, or any real non-internet umpire I come across says "catcher's balk", we are referring to 4.03a.

I know you are, and you're referring to the wrong situation.

The entire notion of calling it the "catcher's balk" is because the pitcher is charged with one, when he didn't commit one, due to an illegal action by the catcher. That's what happens in 7.07; that's not what happens in 4.03(a).

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The catcher flat out causes a 4.03(a) balk. If the pitcher pitches after the catcher leaves the box it's a balk. If the pitcher stops because the catcher left the box, it's a balk. Either way - the catcher caused it. It is impossible for the pitcher to avoid it. Ain't his fault.

Correct. Even though the catcher caused it, the pitcher is penalized for HIS OWN actions. In 7.07, the pitcher never balks; he delivers a legal pitch. The catcher then commits an illegal act causing the pitcher to be charged with a balk when he didn't commit one. Thus, the "catcher's balk"--the catcher is literally the one whose actions are penalized by charging a balk to the pitcher, who did NOTHING illegal.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

All (ALL) balks are charged to the pitcher.

Correct. But in only one instance is one is charged to him when he didn't actually commit one. What rule explains when that happens? (Hint: It isn't 4.03(a).)

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

And, BTW, the 4.03(a) one is the one called a catcher's balk.

Improperly, by the ill-informed masses, including most umpires, absolutely.

Originally Posted by umpjim

In both cases, the pitcher should not release the ball if he sees the catcher violating the rule.

Utterly impossible under 7.07--the catcher doesn't violate the rule until after the pitch has been legally delivered. I have never seen 4.03(a) enforced in a professional baseball game, even though I've observed the "violation" scores of times.

Originally Posted by umpjim

But, back to the real world.

Just because it may not be part of your umpiring experiences doesn't mean others' are equally limited. I have invoked 7.07 more times than I have 4.03(a). I'm ashamed that when I was relatively new, I onced balked a pitcher under 4.03(a). I never repeated that ignorant mistake.