Balking

2017LHPscrewball posted:

Not trying to derail the thread, but it seems bacdorslider is fairly content so, I have a question.

I know you have to have contact with the rubber.  I know you have to come set and move forward but what constitutes an illegal pitch?  What are the high school standards that one can violate and have it called illegal? I've seen balks but I don't think I have ever heard an illegal pitch called.

My understanding is that a balk and an illegal pitch are exactly the same in that an illegal pitch becomes a balk in the presence of baserunners.  If that is in fact correct, my earlier question may help clarify - what constitutes an illegal pitch from the wind up?  Have not gotten a direct response yet but remain hopeful.

Also trying to determine what constitutes a stoppage of "continuous movement".  I would theorize that the human body is never fully still, so there must be an appearance of a pause.  The idea that the video does not show a pause seems incorrect, but I think all would agree that it comes awfully close and invites close scrutiny.  That said, the fact that he has not had intermittent balks (when he simply moves too slowly) called suggests I am wrong.

You are generally correct about the distinction between balks and illegal pitches but not quite.

An illegal pitch is a violation of any of the provisions for how to assume one of the two legal pitching positions and how to deliver a pitch from one of those provisions. A ball is awarded with nobody on base, and a balk is awarded if there are base runners.

In addition, there is a separate list of actions that constitute balks when runners are on base.

For me, the determination as to whether there is one continuous motion centers on the rule book term "discernible stop." From the set position there is supposed to be one continuous motion for the stretch and one continuous motion for the delivery. And there is supposed to be a discernible stop in between. The rules say a discernible stop is something more than a mere change of direction. If I see zero discernible stops or more than one discernible stop, something illegal happened.

The issue for me is fairness of competition. Batters and runners are entitled to know when the pitcher has assumed his place on the rubber and subjected himself to the pitching rules. They are entitled to know which position he is in so they know what actions he can take from that position. They are entitled to know when he has taken his stretch and further limited his options for bodily movement. They are entitled to know when the pitching motion or throw or feint has begun. And they are entitled to know when the pitcher is committed to throwing home. Without this knowledge, runners can't take appropriate leads or time their starts to the next base and batters can't prepare for the pitch.

Like most umpires, I adjust my level of scrutiny to the quality of baseball being played. If I'm working a 1A varsity game (our smallest classification) between two small private schools that struggle to field complete teams, I'm not going to take over the game by calling a bunch of stuff the inattentive runners aren't even aware of. However, pitchers in a 5A district game between two well-coached, smart, opportunistic teams actively looking for every edge will be held to the letter of the law.

When pitchers are in the wind up position with no runners on base, I'm mostly concerned about things that might cause a problem if the pitcher did them with runners on third base. The illegal hybrid position, in which the pivot foot is nearly perpendicular to the rubber as when pitching from the wind up but the free foot is completely in front of the rubber as when pitching from the set position, is my main concern. A runner on third seeing that position can't tell which rules are in effect and doesn't know if the pitcher can throw over without stepping off. It's not fair to the pitcher's team to let him do it all night, only to call a balk on it in the sixth inning. And it's not fair to the offensive team to limit their ability to execute a squeeze or steal with full vigor.  It needs to be addressed early--though it can be addressed with a well-timed word instead of calling an illegal pitch.

While the P in question is RH, what if a LH pitcher did something like this? If you allow that up'n'down for a RH, then it's absolutely deadly with a LH.  But I would think you still have to wait to see if the pitch was delivered to the plate before making a balk call.  For the RH, I don't recall any 'good' coach ever telling the player to wait until delivery to the plate has started. It's always, as soon as that foot lifts - you go. So while it's not part of the rule, I don't see how anyone could say it's deceiving the runner, batter yes, runner no.  For a LH that move would almost look as if the P was trying to come to 1B, but then he lifts again and delivers to the plate.  I would assume there'd be 95% of the runners diving back to the bag on that! As for 3rd/1st type situation with RH - I could certainly "see" how a BU could call it. But then again, far fewer steals of home in this situation than there are runners that would be looking to take 2B.  Still it is all about delivering the ball to the plate. That's where it's important to have good timing.

In any case, I can only imagine a change to the rules or casebook next year to "clarify" the number of leg pumps allowed. A P is allowed 2 arm pumps from the full windup (there was an Indians/Red Sox P who did this - his name escapes me though).

My LHP has been taught one "strategy" when runner is on 1B.  He does an abbreviated leg kick - more of a slow, straight up-down pump with almost no horizontal movement of the front foot - while watching the runner.  It is slow enough that he can, at times, decide whether to deliver a pitch or throw over (at which point he is usually throwing behind the runner who has taken off towards 2B).  In this type of situation, and assuming a double pump is allowed, is the rule that, at the completion of his first pump, he would be required to eventually deliver a pitch (or else have a balk called)?  This is what I was thinking about when asking whether the pitcher could sit there and pump his leg 5-10 times, as long as he had continuous movement.  Of course it would be designed to deceive, but would it violate the rules.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

My LHP has been taught one "strategy" when runner is on 1B.  He does an abbreviated leg kick - more of a slow, straight up-down pump with almost no horizontal movement of the front foot - while watching the runner.  It is slow enough that he can, at times, decide whether to deliver a pitch or throw over (at which point he is usually throwing behind the runner who has taken off towards 2B).  In this type of situation, and assuming a double pump is allowed, is the rule that, at the completion of his first pump, he would be required to eventually deliver a pitch (or else have a balk called)?  This is what I was thinking about when asking whether the pitcher could sit there and pump his leg 5-10 times, as long as he had continuous movement.  Of course it would be designed to deceive, but would it violate the rules.

After the stretch, once a pitcher starts his motion with a runner on first only, his two options are to step directly to first and throw over or to deliver a pitch.

If he pumps his leg multiple times and then throws over, he's not stepping "directly." The primary meaning of "directly" refers to doing something in a direct manner or without delay. It doesn't refer only to where the pitchers ends up planting his foot.

There's no problem with a slow leg lift that becomes a step and throw to first. But I would definitely call a balk on a second leg lift before throwing over.

And I still maintain that the pause at the bottom of the first leg lift in the clip at the start of this thread would qualify that motion as a balk because it's not one continuous motion. He briefly stops to gather himself or consolidate his balance, and that's what the stretch is for. 

To summarize .... he has decided to not double pump from the stretch to avoid a balk call which would no doubt come at a bad time.    From the wind-up the double pump will remain.   Thanks to all for the insight and input....