Fielder's balk?

[Rita C]

NFHS: Situation: Right fielder is standing with one foot in foul territory when the ball is pitched and hit for a home run.

According to a friend of mine, this is a balk in high school ball? Is this so?

If so, could someone give me references?

Thanks in advance

Rita

[bob jenkins]

It is an illegal pitch if a fielder is on foul territory at the TOP. 1-1-4.

But, having one foot in fair is sufficient.

And, if you see the fielder before the pitch, move him. If you don't see the fielder before the pitch, you aren't going to notice him during the pitch, so it's too late to penalize.

[Rita C]

Thank you. That makes more sense.

I can't see be so officious as to call a balk on this though.

[john5396]

Technically correct if both feet are in foul territory. Realistically, the coach will fix the positioning, since there is no conceivable advantage to positioning in foul territory.

Only reason I could think is a cute girlfriend outside the fence. ;^>

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Rita C

NFHS: Situation: Right fielder is standing with one foot in foul territory when the ball is pitched and hit for a home run.

According to a friend of mine, this is a balk in high school ball? Is this so?

If so, could someone give me references?

Thanks in advance

Rita

ART. 4 . . . At the time of the pitch, all fielders shall be on fair ground except the catcher who shall be in the catcher's box. A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching fair ground.

PENALTY: Illegal pitch. (2-18-1)

2-18-1

An illegal pitch is an illegal act committed by the pitcher with no runner on base, which results in a ball being awarded the batter. When an illegal pitch occurs with a runner, or runners, on base, it is ruled a balk.


By the letter of the rule yes. I encourage all of you to never call this. Put them in fair territory (if anybody says anything) and get back to work. Or don't put the ball in play until everybody is ready.

[drumsub]

This debate has raged for decades, and with the recent Japanese team trying to position their 3rd basemen behind the catcher to defend against a pass ball/wild pitch it has come into the public mindset again.

It would be nice if MLB would put the debate to rest by properly writing the rule (since everyone else derives rules in some form or fashion from MLB, whether they keep up with the changes in a timely manner or not).

Rule 5.02 (4.03)
When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.
(a) The catcher shall position himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.
Penalty: Balk.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret the above. The common one is that it's only a balk if the catcher is out of the box. "Don't do that" is the common mantra regarding fielders, and in fact is how it was handled in the recent game in Japan.

Using that logic the only time it's a balk under the 2015 wording is on an intentional walk.

Grammatically, I read subsection (a) as further defining where a catcher has to be positioned, and the balk penalty applies to any fielder not legally positioned. It could have just as easily been written as part of the opening paragraph of rule 5.02 instead of a subsection.

Another way to read it is that the ump cannot put the ball into play until all fielders are where they should be. In that case a balk couldn't be called because the ball is not in play. After the ball is put in play fielder's can go wherever they want, but the catcher has to stay in the box till the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

An older version of this rule (formerly Rule 4 section 3) made no mention of the intentional walk, so one has to assume MLB is trying to better define the rule. I think it's muddied up even more.

Subsection (b) states the pitcher must take his legal pitching position, but since that is elaborated on later there is nothing more mentioned about a penalty, but we all know there is one even though it isn't stated here. And subsection (c) confirms players other than the pitcher and catcher may position themselves anywhere in fair territory. Again, no penalty is ascribed because it's already been addressed if they are not in fair territory.

Anyone who has read baseball rule books knows they are often poorly written/worded, often on purpose. But this is the only rule that comes to mind that so many people say has no consequence. If there's no consequence, why is it even mentioned? Is it really a rule then? A fielder can certainly gain an advantage when holding a runner on if they can straddle the line.

It can be debated forever, but until MLB writes the rule clearly it will never be decided 100%. Some organizations have attempted to get around it by defining "in fair territory" as having at least 1 foot in fair. Because of other rules even this comes up short (or can be seen as contradictory), but at least it mitigates arguments from coaches who have read the rules.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by drumsub

This debate has raged for decades, and with the recent Japanese team trying to position their 3rd basemen behind the catcher to defend against a pass ball/wild pitch it has come into the public mindset again.

It would be nice if MLB would put the debate to rest by properly writing the rule (since everyone else derives rules in some form or fashion from MLB, whether they keep up with the changes in a timely manner or not).

Rule 5.02 (4.03)
When the ball is put in play at the start of, or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory.
(a) The catcher shall position himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play except that when the batter is being given an intentional base on balls the catcher must stand with both feet within the lines of the catcher's box until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.
Penalty: Balk.

There are all sorts of ways to interpret the above. The common one is that it's only a balk if the catcher is out of the box. "Don't do that" is the common mantra regarding fielders, and in fact is how it was handled in the recent game in Japan.

Using that logic the only time it's a balk under the 2015 wording is on an intentional walk.

Grammatically, I read subsection (a) as further defining where a catcher has to be positioned, and the balk penalty applies to any fielder not legally positioned. It could have just as easily been written as part of the opening paragraph of rule 5.02 instead of a subsection.

Another way to read it is that the ump cannot put the ball into play until all fielders are where they should be. In that case a balk couldn't be called because the ball is not in play. After the ball is put in play fielder's can go wherever they want, but the catcher has to stay in the box till the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

An older version of this rule (formerly Rule 4 section 3) made no mention of the intentional walk, so one has to assume MLB is trying to better define the rule. I think it's muddied up even more.

Subsection (b) states the pitcher must take his legal pitching position, but since that is elaborated on later there is nothing more mentioned about a penalty, but we all know there is one even though it isn't stated here. And subsection (c) confirms players other than the pitcher and catcher may position themselves anywhere in fair territory. Again, no penalty is ascribed because it's already been addressed if they are not in fair territory.

Anyone who has read baseball rule books knows they are often poorly written/worded, often on purpose. But this is the only rule that comes to mind that so many people say has no consequence. If there's no consequence, why is it even mentioned? Is it really a rule then? A fielder can certainly gain an advantage when holding a runner on if they can straddle the line.

It can be debated forever, but until MLB writes the rule clearly it will never be decided 100%. Some organizations have attempted to get around it by defining "in fair territory" as having at least 1 foot in fair. Because of other rules even this comes up short (or can be seen as contradictory), but at least it mitigates arguments from coaches who have read the rules.

The balk penalty is indented with (a). There should be no question that it only applies to the catcher during an intentional walk.
I've always seen the intentional walk referenced in old 4.03(a). How far back are you going?
The intentional walk is also referenced in new6.02/old 8.05.
BTW, current interps allow the catcher to leave the box when the pitcher starts his motion.

[JJ]

MANY years ago when I went to Wendlestedt's school I only missed one quiz question - the very first of the 180 or so total that were asked during the five weeks.
"The leadoff batter hits the first pitch over the left field wall for a home run. Then the umpires notice there was no left fielder on the field when the ball was hit. What's the outcome?"
My logic of course was "screw the team that screwed up" - penalize the DEFENSE since they screwed up. WRONG!
"Nullify the pitch. Put the fielder out there. Resume the game."
Yes, this is only somewhat related to the OP here, but it's an amusing story.
I'll go with Bob here - if I don't see it during the pitch, I won't see it after the pitch. One foot in fair territory will suffice.

JJ

[drumsub]

I have no idea how far back I'm going for the MLB rule, I just know our rule book derived from NFHS (word for word in many sections), which derived from MLB, and it simply states "The catcher shall position himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play". No reference to the intentional walk. So the penalty was not limited to an intentional walk, and it would be hard to argue that in our league games to this day. Additionally, the penalty statement is not indented with subsection A so the argument can be made that it applies to everything above it and not just subsection A.

I think the biggest reason this is still misunderstood by many is because youth leagues that have their own rule books don't keep up with the yearly changes in MLB/NFHS/etc. I have a laundry list of differences we either haven't kept up with, or haven't adopted for one reason or another, that lead to confusion with coaches, players, and umps participating in multiple leagues.

All that aside, I still think it could easily be put to rest with a simple comment in that section as is done in so many other places in the rules. Look at the lengthy comment for 5.03 regarding base coaches. MLB felt that one needed an explanation, yet this commonly misapplied and much debated rule doesn't get the same treatment. Obviously it isn't debated or misapplied at that level so it doesn't get any attention.

[drumsub]

JJ, what difference does 1 or 2 feet in foul have? Are you saying you'd make a call if the 1st baseman had both feet in foul while holding the runner on? Or would you stick with the "don't do that" response/warning?

Like any rule book for any sport, if it warrants mentioning it warrants a consequence. If it doesn't then should anyone really care, and should it be mentioned at all?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by drumsub

JJ, what difference does 1 or 2 feet in foul have? Are you saying you'd make a call if the 1st baseman had both feet in foul while holding the runner on? Or would you stick with the "don't do that" response/warning?

Like any rule book for any sport, if it warrants mentioning it warrants a consequence. If it doesn't then should anyone really care, and should it be mentioned at all?

What you do is not put the ball in play until the fielder complies.

Smart move in FED.

MLBUM procedure for OBR.

Don't cause a problem - head it off.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by drumsub

I have no idea how far back I'm going for the MLB rule, I just know our rule book derived from NFHS (word for word in many sections), which derived from MLB, and it simply states "The catcher shall position himself directly back of the plate. He may leave his position at any time to catch a pitch or make a play". No reference to the intentional walk. So the penalty was not limited to an intentional walk, and it would be hard to argue that in our league games to this day. Additionally, the penalty statement is not indented with subsection A so the argument can be made that it applies to everything above it and not just subsection A.

I think the biggest reason this is still misunderstood by many is because youth leagues that have their own rule books don't keep up with the yearly changes in MLB/NFHS/etc. I have a laundry list of differences we either haven't kept up with, or haven't adopted for one reason or another, that lead to confusion with coaches, players, and umps participating in multiple leagues.

All that aside, I still think it could easily be put to rest with a simple comment in that section as is done in so many other places in the rules. Look at the lengthy comment for 5.03 regarding base coaches. MLB felt that one needed an explanation, yet this commonly misapplied and much debated rule doesn't get the same treatment. Obviously it isn't debated or misapplied at that level so it doesn't get any attention.

If your rulebook is derived from NFHS it is not derived from MLB/OBR. Their are many many differences.
NFHS actually does not differentiate when the catcher can leave his box but an umpire who would be focused on this particular infraction would be an untrained, but perhaps a well read, umpire. If the umpire has no access to on field practical umpire training then the next thing he should read is "Baseball Rules Differences" by Carl Childress.
Are you saying the rule is commonly miss applied or debated in the USA or in a foreign country?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by drumsub

JJ, what difference does 1 or 2 feet in foul have? Are you saying you'd make a call if the 1st baseman had both feet in foul while holding the runner on? Or would you stick with the "don't do that" response/warning?

FED specifically says "one foot in fair is okay." So, in FED, if you see F3 with both feet in foul, stop play, and make him put one in fair. If you don't see F3 with both feet in foul then you can't enforce any penalty.

In OBR /interps, it says, "don't worry until one coach complains, then enforce for both" In OBR, both feet must be in fair territory.

[drumsub]

@umpjim, all baseball rulebooks derived from MLB. They've undergone changes since the first writing, and of course there are differences, but you can still see parts that are the same wording, or organized the same way. Maybe there's a league out there other than MLB that sat down and wrote a rule book from scratch, but I've seen no evidence of that.

And I'm saying it's debated and misapplied in youth leagues all over the US. That's obvious from the existence of threads like this one.

My point is that due to all the derivative rule books out there you've got various iterations of the rule with different wording, indentations, etc. It doesn't matter what X's interpretation guide says to someone in Y league, and the existence of that interp guide probably isn't known to that person. My point is that the confusion could have been put to rest by MLB addressing it as they do so many other rules via a short note in the rule book way back when.

I remember this thing sparked in the 80's because Keith Hernandez had it called on him and then every ump in my area was calling it because they saw it in an MLB game (or so the rumor went, I didn't actually see it myself, but as a young umpire I believed what the older guys taught). So there has obviously been confusion over the years.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by drumsub

@umpjim, all baseball rulebooks derived from MLB. They've undergone changes since the first writing, and of course there are differences, but you can still see parts that are the same wording, or organized the same way. Maybe there's a league out there other than MLB that sat down and wrote a rule book from scratch, but I've seen no evidence of that.

And I'm saying it's debated and misapplied in youth leagues all over the US. That's obvious from the existence of threads like this one.

My point is that due to all the derivative rule books out there you've got various iterations of the rule with different wording, indentations, etc. It doesn't matter what X's interpretation guide says to someone in Y league, and the existence of that interp guide probably isn't known to that person. My point is that the confusion could have been put to rest by MLB addressing it as they do so many other rules via a short note in the rule book way back when.

I remember this thing sparked in the 80's because Keith Hernandez had it called on him and then every ump in my area was calling it because they saw it in an MLB game (or so the rumor went, I didn't actually see it myself, but as a young umpire I believed what the older guys taught). So there has obviously been confusion over the years.

No OBR rule version/derivative I have ever seen has a penalty listed for not being fair - therefore it isn't a balk.

No OBR rule version/derivative I have ever seen has it listed in 8.05 as a balk, therefore it isn't one.