Was This A Balk?

[Parker Hageman]

8.05 covers a plethora of illegal pitches in which the one that happen is not referenced.(e)-(m) are all examples of illegal pitches.

 

 

No, you are reading that section incorrectly. Section 8.05 covers examples of balk situations, not illegal pitches.  8.05e states that "The pitcher makes an illegal pitch;" and then specifies that a quick pitch is one illegal pitch.

 

Man, rule interpretation is the best part about baseball. 

 

[formerly33]

 

Altering the timing as much as he did could be seen as deceiving to the hitter.

If making a pitch look slow but then speeding it up is "deceptive," then throwing a curve or change-up could be interpreted that way as well. When you think about it, a change-up is supposed to look like a fastball, but it's much slower than it's supposed to look, and a curve (for instance) is supposed to look like it's going over the plate but then all of a sudden swings away.

[Secondary User]

 

It could be, if it wasn't obvious that speeding up his delivery had nothing to do with trying to deceive Vargas.

 

Whether that was his intent or not isn't relevant.

[Secondary User]

 

 

If making a pitch look slow but then speeding it up is "deceptive," then throwing a curve or change-up could be interpreted that way as well. When you think about it, a change-up is supposed to look like a fastball, but it's much slower than it's supposed to look, and a curve (for instance) is supposed to look like it's going over the plate but then all of a sudden swings away.

 

Throwing different kinds of pitches and altering your delivery are two different things

[Secondary User]

 

 

No, you are reading that section incorrectly. Section 8.05 covers examples of balk situations, not illegal pitches.  8.05e states that "The pitcher makes an illegal pitch;" and then specifies that a quick pitch is one illegal pitch.

 

Man, rule interpretation is the best part about baseball. 

 

I thought my days of being a "Rules Nazi" were done when I stopped DMing DnD campaigns

[TwinsTakes-RD]

 

That's why they specify the difference between base and plate.

The term "home base" is used 29 times in the 2014 Official Baseball Rules and in section 2.0 it says:

 

"A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points."

 

He altered his throw to get the baserunner out. 

[jimmer]

-The pitcher delivers the pitch from Set Position without coming to a stop.

-The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher's box

-The pitcher delivers the ball to the batter while he is not facing the batter;

 

The above aren't examples of illegal pitches? I understand these cause you to get a balk called, but one wouldn't describe them as illegal pitches?  Where is the list of things specified as an illegal pitch besides the quick pitch?

[jimmer]

 

The term "home base" is used 29 times in the 2014 Official Baseball Rules and in section 2.0 it says:

 

"A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score

a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points."

 

He altered his throw to get the baserunner out. 

Not in the context of the rules we're discussing, IMO, but hey. I think people are looking and stretching the rule (and the spirit of the rule) to fit their opinion.

[jimmer]

 

The term "home base" is used 29 times in the 2014 Official Baseball Rules and in section 2.0 it says:

 

"A BASE is one of four points which must be touched by a runner in order to score a run; more usually applied to the canvas bags and the rubber plate which mark the base points."

 

He altered his throw to get the baserunner out. 

Read the rules you quoted again. 

 

the first one was © At any time during the pitcher's preliminary movements and until his natural pitching motion commits him to the pitch, he may throw to any base provided he steps directly toward such base before making the throw. The pitcher shall step "ahead of the throw." A snap throw followed by the step directly toward the base is a balk.

 

But he had already committed to the pitch to home plate.  that's what starting hsi windup does. So it doesn't apply.

 

The second one was, c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base; Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base.'

 

Again, I think the rule is talking about 1st, 2nd or 3rd base but even if they aren't, he step towards home before throwing it. So he broke neither rule, assuming it even applied when talking about throwing home.

[Secondary User]

 

Not in the context of the rules we're discussing, IMO, but hey. I think people are looking and stretching the rule (and the spirit of the rule) to fit their opinion.

 

In this section of the rules, the word "plate" is used 17 times, and the only time it's not used in regard's to the "pitcher's plate" is when it is used in regard to the "plate umpire"

 

The context they use in this set of rules is that the "plate" is the pitcher's rubber

[jimmer]

 

In this section of the rules, the word "plate" is used 17 times, and the only time it's not used in regard's to the "pitcher's plate" is when it is used in regard to the "plate umpire"

 

The context they use in this set of rules is that the "plate" is the pitcher's rubber

I'm talking about the rules he quoted.

[jimmer]

 

In this section of the rules, the word "plate" is used 17 times, and the only time it's not used in regard's to the "pitcher's plate" is when it is used in regard to the "plate umpire"

 

The context they use in this set of rules is that the "plate" is the pitcher's rubber

Yes, and how often do you hear anyone talk about the runner crossing home base to score? Or, there's a play at 4th or home base?  Was a run 'plated' or was it 'based'?

 

These rules in this section, when talking about bases, are not talking about home plate (specifically the ones the poster I was addressing used) regardless of whether or not the term everyone knows is home plate isn't specifically mentioned as such.

[Parker Hageman]

The above aren't examples of illegal pitches? I understand these cause you to get a balk called, but one wouldn't describe them as illegal pitches?  Where is the list of things specified as an illegal pitch besides the quick pitch?

 

 

As the Rule 8.05 begins "If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when --" and what follows is a list of those examples. Some of them are illegal pitches but not a list of the only examples of illegal pitches. For example, Rule 8.05h is about delay of game which has nothing to do with a pitch. Rule 8.05k is about dropping the ball, which is also not a pitch. 

 

An illegal pitch is basically anything deviating from what is allowed in the 8.01 "legal pitch delivery" plus other situations. Going back to the non-balk call, Guthrie seemingly "altered" his delivery from the windup. That's my sticking point. What I want to know from someone on that umpire crew is what about that delivery does not meet that standard. 

 

[jimmer]

 

An illegal pitch is basically anything deviating from what is allowed in the 8.01 "legal pitch delivery" plus other situations. Going back to the non-balk call, Guthrie seemingly "altered" his delivery from the windup. That's my sticking point. What I want to know from someone on that umpire crew is what about that delivery does not meet that standard.

The way I read it: Once he starts moving after being set in the windup, he can't stop (interruption) of do anything else but deliver pitch (alteration: like step off, throw to a base, trip, etc). And it goes on to explain some alterations it's referring to like 'He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.' He didn't do anything of those things specifically mentioned.

IMO, it's not referring to how the ball is actually delivered after going through all the required steps for doing a windup pitch. He did all those. If he had actually stopped, planted and thrown, that would be different. I've spent about 30 years interpreting baseball rules as an umpire. The rule is shaky though, for sure. Just my opinion.

[h2oface]

If MLB has ruled what Carter Capps does and to a lesser extent what Jordan Walden does is not a balk, then this is certainly not a balk. If you can change the amount of time you stay set in the set position and alter that everytime, then this is not a balk. And it wasn't called a balk, so it is not a balk.

 

I think they are all a balk, and just another example of rules (like the neighborhood play) being ignored to fit tradition or custom. Not much different than plate umpires still getting to call fictional strike zones and make up a new one with each pitch when we have the ability to call the same strike zone on every pitch in every game now and baseball doesn't chose to.

[TwinsTakes-RD]

 

Read the rules you quoted again. 

 

the first one was © At any time during the pitcher's preliminary movements and until his natural pitching motion commits him to the pitch, he may throw to any base provided he steps directly toward such base before making the throw. The pitcher shall step "ahead of the throw." A snap throw followed by the step directly toward the base is a balk.

 

But he had already committed to the pitch to home plate.  that's what starting hsi windup does. So it doesn't apply.

 

The second one was, c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base; Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base.'

 

Again, I think the rule is talking about 1st, 2nd or 3rd base but even if they aren't, he step towards home before throwing it. So he broke neither rule, assuming it even applied when talking about throwing home.

No he didn't. He never stepped until after he threw the ball. 

[Secondary User]

 

Yes, and how often do you hear anyone talk about the runner crossing home base to score? Or, there's a play at 4th or home base?  Was a run 'plated' or was it 'based'?

 

These rules in this section, when talking about bases, are not talking about home plate (specifically the ones the poster I was addressing used) regardless of whether or not the term everyone knows is home plate isn't specifically mentioned as such.

 

But we're not talking about how often people say it and how it's used today.  What we're talking about is how it is defined in the rule book.

[Parker Hageman]

The way I read it: Once he starts moving after being set in the windup, he can't stop (interruption) of do anything else but deliver pitch (alteration: like step off, throw to a base, trip, etc). And it goes on to explain some alterations it's referring to like 'He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.' He didn't do anything of those things specifically mentioned.

 

 

Again, you are not reading the rules correctly and seem to be adding things that are not there.

 

(1) When it mentions alterations in the windup, the rules do not mention any examples (nothing like step off, throw to a base, trip, etc). Those are definitely some examples but there are no listed examples within the official rules. The rules do not specifically state what is considered an alteration and what is not.

 

(2) The second part of that ("He shall not...") is not a description explaining alterations. It is a continuation of the definition of what the windup consists of. 

 

Everyone can read those rules here (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp) but nothing within suggest that it is either definitively a balk or not. In this case, MLB should be clear what is an alteration to the delivery. 

 

 

[jimmer]

 

Again, you are not reading the rules correctly and seem to be adding things that are not there.

 

(1) When it mentions alterations in the windup, the rules do not mention any examples (nothing like step off, throw to a base, trip, etc). Those are definitely some examples but there are no listed examples within the official rules. The rules do not specifically state what is considered an alteration and what is not.

 

(2) The second part of that ("He shall not...") is not a description explaining alterations. It is a continuation of the definition of what the windup consists of. 

 

Everyone can read those rules here (http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp) but nothing within suggest that it is either definitively a balk or not. In this case, MLB should be clear what is an alteration to the delivery. 

I've read the rules, and I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting the alteration part right.  You are certainly entitled to believe otherwise, but that's your opinion. I never said the rule specified what I put in quotes I just gave examples of what an alteration might be or what I thought an alteration would be interpreted as.

 

But it did say .'He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.'  Those sure SEEM like examples. And it continued from there in that paragraph on things that could and couldn't be done to be considered a windup.

 

It wasn't called, so apparently the umpires also don't think he altered his delivery in the context of the rule either.

 

Also, you seem heck-bent on saying it's a balk, so why start a thread to ask people their OPINIONS if all you want to do is shout down anyone saying other-wise?  You're interpreting what they mean by alteration one way, others are doing it another, but those others are doing it wrong, apparently. The only way to interpret the rules correctly is to conclude it was a balk?

 

It wasn't a balk, IMO.

[formerly33]

 

Throwing different kinds of pitches and altering your delivery are two different things

I agree. And I'm not going to say that someone who thinks this is a balk is necessarily wrong, I just think that if somebody turned that into their signature pitch, most (if not all) umpires would let it pass. Which is why I don't care too much about the call.

 

If someone can slide on their foot down the mound before throwing a pitch, someone should be able to rapidly (albeit defensively, which is where this gets sticky) speed up their delivery.

[COtwin]

In all honesty I am not sure if it was a balk or not, but I do have to say that I was very appreciative of the Umpires huddling up and discussing it.  Allowing Molitor to be in on the discussion or at least present was a good move.  I have become so used to seeing Umpires make a snap call and then be stubborn about it. Gotta say it was nice to see at least a token discussion.  

 

Also, I actually liked the play.  I could have cost us majorly, but it didn't and it was exciting as hell.  People should try that more often.  At least we should, we leave men in scoring position all the time.

 

Just my two cents.

[Parker Hageman]

If MLB has ruled what Carter Capps does and to a lesser extent what Jordan Walden does is not a balk, then this is certainly not a balk.

 

 

That is a very weak argument in comparison to this instance. In Capps' case, he delivers it the same way every time that way. Guthrie altered his delivery for this instance. By the book, they are balking. But then again so is everyone when their back foot leaves the contact of the rubber. MLB just said, meh, whatever and told Capps not to jump so high when delivering. 

 

I'm not surprised this wasn't called but I would love it if one of the beat writers got a comment from the umpire crew on their discussion or interpretation of the rule.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TwinsCD]

As a HS umpire for 11 years (and yes, HS and MLB rules are different in certain aspects), I wouldn't have called this a balk.  Yes, it looks weird and often times when we see something out of the ordinary, we immediately think it's a balk.  It's an odd looking move and likely an alteration from how he normally throws it but his motion is continuous throughout the delivery.  So I would agree with how Jimmer interpreted it and what the umpires on the field ruled.

[jimmer]

 

As a HS umpire for 11 years (and yes, HS and MLB rules are different in certain aspects), I wouldn't have called this a balk.  Yes, it looks weird and often times when we see something out of the ordinary, we immediately think it's a balk.  It's an odd looking move and likely an alteration from how he normally throws it but his motion is continuous throughout the delivery.  So I would agree with how Jimmer interpreted it and what the umpires on the field ruled.

Yeah, I've been umpiring on an off for 30 years from little league to low level college. I would never have called this a balk.

[Secondary User]

 

I agree. And I'm not going to say that someone who thinks this is a balk is necessarily wrong, I just think that if somebody turned that into their signature pitch, most (if not all) umpires would let it pass. Which is why I don't care too much about the call.

 

If someone can slide on their foot down the mound before throwing a pitch, someone should be able to rapidly (albeit defensively, which is where this gets sticky) speed up their delivery.

 

They can absolutely do that....if it is their natural pitching motion.  They use the phrase "his natural pitching motion" several times, and if that's how he does it, then it's not a balk.  But if it's an alteration to serve a purpose, it gets more gray area

[Dantes929]

Rules and interpretations have been covered pretty well .   As a practical matter if  Guthrie had been forced to pitch at his normal pace Hunter could have scored and cleared the batting area in time for Vargas to settle in for the pitch.    Slightly off topic but I thought it was a fantastic play by Hunter.    Guthrie's delivery was very slow with his head down.    Most of the time Hunter would have scored  with a pitcher that disrupted.    I wonder how many would have said it was a questionable decision if he had been safe.

[Parker Hageman]

Also, you seem heck-bent on saying it's a balk, so why ask people their OPINIONS if all you want to do is shout down anyone saying other-wise?  It wasn't a balk.

 

 

Again, I value everyone's OPINIONS here. This has led to a fun debate about an innocuous April play. 

 

[TwinsTakes-RD]

 

I've read the rules, and I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting the alteration part right.  You are certainly entitled to believe otherwise, but that's your opinion. I never said the rule specified what I put in quotes I just gave examples of what an alteration might be or what I thought an alteration would be interpreted as.

 

But it did say .'He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.'  Those sure SEEM like examples. And it continued from there in that paragraph on things that could and couldn't be done to be considered a windup.

 

It wasn't called, so apparently the umpires also don't think he altered his delivery in the context of the rule either.

 

Also, you seem heck-bent on saying it's a balk, so why start a thread to ask people their OPINIONS if all you want to do is shout down anyone saying other-wise?  You're interpreting what they mean by alteration one way, others are doing it another, but those others are doing it wrong, apparently. The only way to interpret the rules correctly is to conclude it was a balk?

 

It wasn't a balk, IMO.

I'm not Heck-bent on saying it was a balk. That's just my opinion of the rules as I read them and the way I read the rule is you have to step toward the base your throwing to. I interpret that to mean any base including home "plate." He didn't step until after he threw the ball. If he does that to any other base, is it a balk? I think it is. Should the rules be different for home plate? I don't think so but that's another discussion altogether. It does appear they are different though.

 

I'm just happy to have a discussion about baseball.

 

The peculiar thing about all of this is we're talking about the balk (or not balk) and we should be talking about the play more than anything. Are we happy they were aggressive with the bases loaded and Kennys Vargas up? It was exciting, risky and it's nice to know they are exploring any options to score. Now maybe that's because they've struggled so far this season with the pond full of ducks but hey, maybe not!

[TwinsTakes-RD]

One question to the umpires who have commented. Is it a balk if he does that same play towards 1st, 2nd or 3rd? 

 

If yes, then why is home any different?

[jimmer]

 

 

The peculiar thing about all of this is we're talking about the balk (or not balk) and we should be talking about the play more than anything. Are we happy they were aggressive with the bases loaded and Kennys Vargas up? It was exciting, risky and it's nice to know they are exploring any options to score. Now maybe that's because they've struggled so far this season with the pond full of ducks but hey, maybe not!

that heck-bent thing wasn't addressed to you, so you know.

 

And yeah, about the decision to attempt the steal goes, because we don't know if Vargas gets a hit there, I lean towards not taking the bat out of a slugger's hands when bases are loaded, myself.  If Schaefer or Robinson is up there, maybe yes.

 

I think if a younger player had tried it, like Plouffe or Escobar (or any person not considered a willy veteran), people would be calling it stupid not aggressive.