Umpires say we can discuss rule interpretations but not judgement calls.
Where would you put the balk call?
Thanks and I appreciate the knowledge you guys have!
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Well, if you drill down into the logic, interpretation and judgement are really inseparable concepts.
I think the ump is telling you that the scope of your discussions with him about rule interpretations is subject to his judgement.
Either that, or he is trying to tell you that your judgement will be evaluated by his interpretation of the rules.
Either way, ya can't win....
I think the ump is telling you that the scope of your discussions with him about rule interpretations is subject to his judgement.
Either that, or he is trying to tell you that your judgement will be evaluated by his interpretation of the rules.
Either way, ya can't win....
It is both. There are specific reasons or actions that cause a balk, that's the interpretation part. Whether he did it or not is the judgment part.
The reason you always hear this distinction is on plays like a force out, that is all judgment and can't be argued. Ball and strikes is another example.
Back to the balk. If your pitcher is called for a balk then ask what he did. If the umlpire says no stop, feint to first or dropped the ball, these are all correct reasons for a balk so it becomes a judgment that can't be argued. If he says he threw to an unoccupied base, but the runner was stealing, then he has an incorrect interp and it can be protested. If he says the pitcher stepped to first without disengaging, he would be wrong and be protested. So, the secret is to find out why he called a balk and then figure out if it is judgment or interp.
This can carry into other areas also. Say an umpire calls a strike on a batter for holding his bat in the zone while bunting, but the pitch is over the batter's head. This is an incorrect interpretation. The secret is to ask the right question to get the right answer. Do not let an ump try and BS his way out of a mistake by saying it's judgment and can't be protested.
The reason you always hear this distinction is on plays like a force out, that is all judgment and can't be argued. Ball and strikes is another example.
Back to the balk. If your pitcher is called for a balk then ask what he did. If the umlpire says no stop, feint to first or dropped the ball, these are all correct reasons for a balk so it becomes a judgment that can't be argued. If he says he threw to an unoccupied base, but the runner was stealing, then he has an incorrect interp and it can be protested. If he says the pitcher stepped to first without disengaging, he would be wrong and be protested. So, the secret is to find out why he called a balk and then figure out if it is judgment or interp.
This can carry into other areas also. Say an umpire calls a strike on a batter for holding his bat in the zone while bunting, but the pitch is over the batter's head. This is an incorrect interpretation. The secret is to ask the right question to get the right answer. Do not let an ump try and BS his way out of a mistake by saying it's judgment and can't be protested.
The calling of a balk is a judgement that a pitcher has violated the balk rule as the umpire inteprets it.
Thus, it is both. MLB has handled this cunnundrum by instructing umpires to allow a manager to question a balk call. The reply given by umpires is to simply state which of the balk rules were violated. No discussion of judgment.
"Skip, he didn't stop." Would end the discussion.
HOWEVER, if it is evident that the call was based on something not listed as a violation, that would then be appealable.
"Skip, he was looking at first when he delivered the pitch." Since this in not violation of the balk rule, it would be appealable as a misinterpretation of the rule.
The mechanic now being taught by PBUC is to call the balk, wait for play to end, call time, repeat "balk" and add a brief description of the violation.
"That's a balk!.......TIME, That's a balk, didn't come set....you, second base!
Thus, it is both. MLB has handled this cunnundrum by instructing umpires to allow a manager to question a balk call. The reply given by umpires is to simply state which of the balk rules were violated. No discussion of judgment.
"Skip, he didn't stop." Would end the discussion.
HOWEVER, if it is evident that the call was based on something not listed as a violation, that would then be appealable.
"Skip, he was looking at first when he delivered the pitch." Since this in not violation of the balk rule, it would be appealable as a misinterpretation of the rule.
The mechanic now being taught by PBUC is to call the balk, wait for play to end, call time, repeat "balk" and add a brief description of the violation.
"That's a balk!.......TIME, That's a balk, didn't come set....you, second base!
thanks for the answers. I have always wondered which category the balk would fall into.
I very rarely have an issue with the balk. Usually we bring it to the umpires attention in between innings and they will either address it with the pitcher (which I prefer) and call them on it or just call them up on it if they see it.
Thanks again for the answers.
I very rarely have an issue with the balk. Usually we bring it to the umpires attention in between innings and they will either address it with the pitcher (which I prefer) and call them on it or just call them up on it if they see it.
Thanks again for the answers.