Balk or not [Archive]

Ozzy

04-20-2011, 03:25 PM

Terry Francona was ejected for arguing that this should have been a balk. It looks close but fine to me based on the replays from the different angles that are shown.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=13969253
Tough one because of the angles of the cameras. One thing I noticed right away is that F1 almost rolled his right ankle over and this tells me that he stepped more toward 1st at the last minute. I'd probably let F1 go on this.

mr umpire

04-20-2011, 05:34 PM

None of the angles are conclusive for me either. Maybe going by how he planted his free foot but I'm going with good call.

western_ump

04-20-2011, 11:25 PM

Where's Oz to blast them? Bueler? Bueler?

heyblue26

04-21-2011, 12:07 PM

Lokked like he moved towards first base as he stepped in the direction. At First it looked a little strange but I will say that the umpire got the call right.

gabby

04-28-2011, 05:04 AM

It subtly appears that he changed his mind and went to 1B when Pedroia broke, but he was in position to change direction. He didn't break the back plane of the plate, and he gained ground toward 1B.

Andy Petite perfected a move like this one, because he could decide to go in either direction from the highest point of his leg kick.

OzUmp

04-29-2011, 06:09 AM

It subtly appears that he changed his mind and went to 1B when Pedroia broke, but he was in position to change direction. He didn't break the back plane of the plate, and he gained ground toward 1B.

The rule book does not speak of "breaking the back plane." If a pitcher raises his free foot past his pivot foot then he must go to the plate or to second. Last I checked the pivot foot is normally place on the FRONT edge of the rubber.

If you are going to come on this forum and be the newest expert then you should probably do some rule revision or at least look it up before you type. else it just seems like you are talking out of your ass.

gabby

04-29-2011, 01:17 PM

The rule book does not speak of "breaking the back plane." If a pitcher raises his free foot past his pivot foot then he must go to the plate or to second. Last I checked the pivot foot is normally place on the FRONT edge of the rubber.

If you are going to come on this forum and be the newest expert then you should probably do some rule revision or at least look it up before you type. else it just seems like you are talking out of your ass.

Ozump, I'll just assume you haven't had your morning coffee yet. :)

Rule 8.05(a) Comment: If a lefthanded or righthanded pitcher swings his free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, he is required to pitch to the batter except to throw to second base on a pick-off play.

bobjenkins

04-29-2011, 01:21 PM

If you are going to come on this forum and be the newest expert then you should probably do some rule revision or at least look it up before you type. else it just seems like you are talking out of your ass.

Agreed.

Tim_C

04-29-2011, 06:15 PM

Mr. Jenkins noted:

"Agreed."

After the milk came out my nose:

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

T

CoachJM

04-29-2011, 07:04 PM

Gotta' concur with Bob on this one.

JM

OzUmp

04-29-2011, 07:37 PM

Ozump, I'll just assume you haven't had your morning coffee yet. :)

Rule 8.05(a) Comment: If a lefthanded or righthanded pitcher swings his free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber, he is required to pitch to the batter except to throw to second base on a pick-off play.

Then I must assume you dont have an updated copy.

mr umpire

04-29-2011, 07:43 PM

Then I must assume you dont have an updated copy.
Well, it is in the 2010 online version. It can't get much more up-to-date than that except to have the 2011 version.

It has to go past the back edge. It is in the MLBUM as well. Clearly has to go behind the back edge. And, if you really read the comments ahead of yours, they are all telling you the same. Just in their own special subtle ways.

OzUmp

04-29-2011, 07:58 PM

Well, it is in the 2010 online version. It can't get much more up-to-date than that except to have the 2011 version.

It has to go past the back edge. It is in the MLBUM as well. Clearly has to go behind the back edge. And, if you really read the comments ahead of yours, they are all telling you the same. Just in their own special subtle ways.

OK fair enough. If the rule has been changed recently I will wear it. The last hard version
to which I have access mentions the pivot foot (Possibly just an Aussie thing) which if you think about it is much more fair for the runner. Since I recently did my last game I dont think I will be updating.

As to the rest I dont do subtle. I need to be told. I would expect a veiled shot from jm and perhaps bob but I thought T had balls.

western_ump

04-29-2011, 08:18 PM

OK fair enough. If the rule has been changed recently I will wear it. The last hard version
to which I have access mentions the pivot foot (Possibly just an Aussie thing) which if you think about it is much more fair for the runner. Since I recently did my last game I dont think I will be updating.

As to the rest I dont do subtle. I need to be told. I would expect a veiled shot from jm and perhaps bob but I thought T had balls.

The rule hasn't been changed recently.

Tim_C

04-29-2011, 09:12 PM

Geez, cuz I laughed at an error I don't have balls.

Oz, you're just so hard to like or respect.

But you have certainly taken my place as being the "tabasco" of this board.

BTW, it has ALWAYS been the back edge of the pitcher's plate . . . always.

T

OzUmp

04-29-2011, 10:20 PM

Oz, you're just so hard to like or respect.

This is not a problem for me. I am not very well liked in the leagues I work either because the players (especially the upper level prima-donnas) get the strange idea I do things just to piss them off.

BTW, it has ALWAYS been the back edge of the pitcher's plate . . . always.T

Then I must assume it is an Aussie thing. The first thing you will realize if you ever venture over here is that we are a pretentious little piss-ant country. Imagine our prime-minister talking to the Chinese Premier about human rights. What a joke. But I digress. The 2007 rule book (the last that I am aware of) clearly states "past the pivot foot." Even if I did buy that back edge of the pitchers rubber bit, I would ignore it because as it is simply not fair for r1. To my mind if that free foot even points in a backward direction I have a balk if the insuing throw goes to first. I am not big on that intent to deceive bit in the book but sometimes it makes sense.

gabby

04-30-2011, 04:01 AM

This is not a problem for me. I am not very well liked in the leagues I work either because the players (especially the upper level prima-donnas) get the strange idea I do things just to piss them off.

Then I must assume it is an Aussie thing. The first thing you will realize if you ever venture over here is that we are a pretentious little piss-ant country. Imagine our prime-minister talking to the Chinese Premier about human rights. What a joke. But I digress. The 2007 rule book (the last that I am aware of) clearly states "past the pivot foot." Even if I did buy that back edge of the pitchers rubber bit, I would ignore it because as it is simply not fair for r1. To my mind if that free foot even points in a backward direction I have a balk if the insuing throw goes to first. I am not big on that intent to deceive bit in the book but sometimes it makes sense.

And tonight's tap dancing award goes to...

Hey Oz, if you're not gonna follow your own good advice about knowing the rules, just admit it. And if you're making up your own rules, I can see why you're so well liked on the field. :D

western_ump

04-30-2011, 04:08 AM

This is not a problem for me. I am not very well liked in the leagues I work either because the players (especially the upper level prima-donnas) get the strange idea I do things just to piss them off.

Then I must assume it is an Aussie thing. The first thing you will realize if you ever venture over here is that we are a pretentious little piss-ant country. Imagine our prime-minister talking to the Chinese Premier about human rights. What a joke. But I digress. The 2007 rule book (the last that I am aware of) clearly states "past the pivot foot." Even if I did buy that back edge of the pitchers rubber bit, I would ignore it because as it is simply not fair for r1. To my mind if that free foot even points in a backward direction I have a balk if the insuing throw goes to first. I am not big on that intent to deceive bit in the book but sometimes it makes sense.

Seems to me you are probably not well liked as an umpire because you probably aren't very good. Anyone that would ignore a rule because s/he determines it "isn't fair" on their own, shouldn't officiate. Period. You act high and mighty to everyone on this board, but when you are caught with your pants down breaking your OWN rules... You can't even admit it and move on. You have to justify it.

Give up. You probably just aren't a good umpire.

OzUmp

04-30-2011, 04:24 AM

You can't even admit it and move on. You have to justify it.

Look DH (and I dont mean designated hitter) Having something written down in my rule book is pretty damn good justification. I dont need to justify anything. IT IS A RULE!!!

Give up. You probably just aren't a good umpire.

I never claimed to be a good umpire. Hell I really dont care if I am perceived that way or not. I umpire in the highest league available to me that is all i care about. It is certainly not up to anyone on this board to say I am or not. I have my own hierarchy for that. So FO!!!

OzUmp

04-30-2011, 04:32 AM

Hey Oz, if you're not gonna follow your own good advice about knowing the rules, just admit it.

Rule 8.05 (a) ....
If a left-handed or right-handed pitcher swings part of the free foot past the pivot foot, the pitcher is required to pitch to the batter.........

See! that is the rule. I cant help if it is different than yours. I did not write it.

And if you're making up your own rules, I can see why you're so well liked on the field. :D

I think I probably not very well liked because I dont give a crap about them as players and it shows.

yawetag

04-30-2011, 04:47 AM

This chain of events makes me laugh:
Then I must assume you dont have an updated copy.
Well, it is in the 2010 online version. It can't get much more up-to-date than that except to have the 2011 version.
OK fair enough. If the rule has been changed recently I will wear it.
The rule hasn't been changed recently.
The 2007 rule book (the last that I am aware of) clearly states "past the pivot foot."

OzUmp

04-30-2011, 04:51 AM

This chain of events makes me laugh:

I'll bite. Warum?

yawetag

04-30-2011, 06:37 AM

I'll bite. Warum?

Because you insinuate someone isn't using the most-recent book (and in essense call their answer wrong), when you're not using the most-recent book yourself (and are wrong yourself).

Pot, meet kettle.

OzUmp

04-30-2011, 07:40 AM

yawetag

04-30-2011, 08:31 AM

OK I can see your minds are all made up so I am not going to try anymore to confuse you with facts. These are the facts. It is now evident that our rulebooks are worded differently re rule 8.05(a). This is surprising to me because I always thought that we had the rules verbatim with the exception of the description of the strike zone. So I am no more incorrect on that point than you people. Also the 2007 ed is the most recent one of which I am aware.

My assumption now is that Australia uses a different rule book. If that's correct, it would probably be better for you to either 1) Get the MLB rule book and refer to it when answering questions or calling someone else's answer incorrect; or 2) State your answer is based on Australia's rules.

It's not that I don't like you, but that you attacked someone's answer as incorrect, stating they were using an out-dated book, when the book you're using isn't (apparently) the same rule book at all.

gabby

04-30-2011, 12:01 PM

Now that it is clear that you have no intention of accepting the facts and just want to beat up on me because of a personal dislike of someone you have never met I am through with this thread.

Ironically Oz, that's been your M.O. on this forum.
And I understand about not caring if you're liked, but don't you at least want to be respected as a credible umpire?

mr umpire

04-30-2011, 01:16 PM

OK I can see your minds are all made up so I am not going to try anymore to confuse you with facts. These are the facts. It is now evident that our rulebooks are worded differently re rule 8.05(a). This is surprising to me because I always thought that we had the rules verbatim with the exception of the description of the strike zone. So I am no more incorrect on that point than you people. Also the 2007 ed is the most recent one of which I am aware.

Now that it is clear that you have no intention of accepting the facts and just want to beat up on me because of a personal dislike of someone you have never met I am through with this thread.
Well, I agree with yawetag. I was just pointing out that it is the rule for us. Apparently, you have to abide by a different set of rules. And, no one can determine anyone's credibility/ability from a forum. I'm sure many made that assumption about me and some may chime in and say they did.

But, if you want to know where we get this from, here is the link.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/downloads/y2010/official_rules/2010_OfficialBaseballRules.pdf

gabby

04-30-2011, 08:12 PM

Agreed.

Gotta' concur with Bob on this one.

JM

You guys still agree with Ozump?

bobjenkins

05-01-2011, 12:44 AM

You guys still agree with Ozump?

I do agree with what he wrote.

That said, it's certainly plausible that "his" rule book is different from "ours." I remember back in the days shortly after Al Gore invented the interwebs, that the question came up: "If a manager makes the second visiti to a pitcher in an inning, can the pitcher go to right field and remain in the game?" Much brew-ha-ha and name calling, aand accusations of not being able to read the rule book, etc.

Turns out that the Sporting News and NBC editions of the rules (both "authorized printings by MLB" or some such) had a slight difference. One said "the pitcher must be removed" and the other said "the pitcher must be removed from the game." (There was one other minor difference between the rules books, but I forget what it was.)

gabby

05-01-2011, 02:42 AM

I do agree with what he wrote.

That said, it's certainly plausible that "his" rule book is different from "ours." I remember back in the days shortly after Al Gore invented the interwebs, that the question came up: "If a manager makes the second visiti to a pitcher in an inning, can the pitcher go to right field and remain in the game?" Much brew-ha-ha and name calling, aand accusations of not being able to read the rule book, etc.

Turns out that the Sporting News and NBC editions of the rules (both "authorized printings by MLB" or some such) had a slight difference. One said "the pitcher must be removed" and the other said "the pitcher must be removed from the game." (There was one other minor difference between the rules books, but I forget what it was.)

Bob, below is what he wrote and what you agreed to. Are you really sticking with that?

If you are going to come on this forum and be the newest expert then you should probably do some rule revision or at least look it up before you type. else it just seems like you are talking out of your ass.

heyblue26

05-01-2011, 04:55 AM

Now that is a balk. gabby your a new cadet to this site so try not to take it so personnel some of these guys will eat your lunch hope that you have tuff skin.

bobjenkins

05-01-2011, 01:23 PM

Bob, below is what he wrote and what you agreed to. Are you really sticking with that?

Yes. If you're going to "talk like an expert" you should know what you're talking about or you will look like an ass.

I probably wouldn't phrase it that way, but I agree with it.

gabby

05-01-2011, 06:17 PM

Now that is a balk. gabby your a new cadet to this site so try not to take it so personnel some of these guys will eat your lunch hope that you have tuff skin.

Thanks hey blue. I'll take this one in stride and see how it goes. Although I'm new to this forum, my better days in this game are behind me. I naively thought there would be a professional exchange of ideas and experiences in this forum - and of course some friendly sniping - but not some a-hole like Ozump attacking behind the security of a keyboard, and without a clue of what he's talking about. He can cry Aussie rules all he wants, but this is America's game, dammit. Yes, I went there. :shock:

Yes. If you're going to "talk like an expert" you should know what you're talking about or you will look like an ass.

I probably wouldn't phrase it that way, but I agree with it.

Bob, out of context, I also agree with that statement. But in context, you ironically agreed with Ozump's incorrect rule interpretation without knowing the rule yourself. Hey, I've missed my share too. :p

bobjenkins

05-01-2011, 09:58 PM

Bob, out of context, I also agree with that statement. But in context, you ironically agreed with Ozump's incorrect rule interpretation without knowing the rule yourself. Hey, I've missed my share too. :p

Not at all. I agreed with his coment and the comment meant that he was hoisted by his own petard.

CoachJM

05-01-2011, 10:07 PM

Thanks hey blue. I'll take this one in stride and see how it goes. Although I'm new to this forum, my better days in this game are behind me. I naively thought there would be a professional exchange of ideas and experiences in this forum - and of course some friendly sniping - but not some a-hole like Ozump attacking behind the security of a keyboard, and without a clue of what he's talking about. He can cry Aussie rules all he wants, but this is America's game, dammit. Yes, I went there. :shock:

Bob, out of context, I also agree with that statement. But in context, you ironically agreed with Ozump's incorrect rule interpretation without knowing the rule yourself. Hey, I've missed my share too. :p

gabby,

What Bob was saying (indirectly) was that OzUmp was himself guilt of what he was (incorrectly) accusing another poster.

So, yes, I still agree with Bob.

JM

gabby

05-02-2011, 01:38 AM

Not at all. I agreed with his coment and the comment meant that he was hoisted by his own petard.

gabby,

What Bob was saying (indirectly) was that OzUmp was himself guilt of what he was (incorrectly) accusing another poster.

So, yes, I still agree with Bob.

JM

Thanks guys. That's on me.