Need a quick ruling... Man on 3rd (R3) pitcher in the windup position both feet on the rubber hands at his chest ball in the glove. Batter ready and he (the pitcher) starts to sway from side to side as he takes the sign.. sometimes 3 times sometimes 6 maybe only twice... what do you have?
Replies sorted oldest to newest
If you believe his movements were to deceive the runner than a balk call is in order.
Need a quick ruling... Man on 3rd (R3) pitcher in the windup position both feet on the rubber hands at his chest ball in the glove. Batter ready and he (the pitcher) starts to sway from side to side as he takes the sign.. sometimes 3 times sometimes 6 maybe only twice... what do you have?
If he was making a motion associated with a pitch, it's a balk. Without seeing it, it's hard to tell.
If you believe his movements were to deceive the runner than a balk call is in order.
Only if they're illegal.
If he was making a motion associated with a pitch, it's a balk. Without seeing it, it's hard to tell.
I agree with this.
From the windup with both hands together in front of his body (that's how I read the OP), FED says the pitcher has committed to pitch when he first moves his arms or legs.
impossible to really know without seeing. But to me a key factor would be is it something he does from wind up on all pitches, or just with base runners on or on a certain base. Rocking prior to starting delivery isn't necessarily a balk move. But if he's varying the number of rocks randomly as described, then would tend to see it as a balk.
impossible to really know without seeing. But to me a key factor would be is it something he does from wind up on all pitches, or just with base runners on or on a certain base. Rocking prior to starting delivery isn't necessarily a balk move. But if he's varying the number of rocks randomly as described, then would tend to see it as a balk.
What rule is he violating?
As I said, it might not be a balk; would need to see it to have a firm opinion. But once in contact with the rubber, he can't overtly deceive runner. So if this rocking is a part of his delivery, then varying it pitch to pitch could be intentionally deceptive to hold runner closer. When in contact with the rubber from the wind up, hard to make a move that isn't meaningful to the delivery.
I can't remember the name or even team, but there was an MLB guy in the past couple of years who had a sort of extra rock... what I would describe as a stutter... at the start of his delivery. I remember some discussion that it could have been construed as a balk, but the fact that he did it consistently... with runners on or without... made it a part of his regular delivery and not an attempt at deception. Of course this only comes into play with bases loaded or runner on third when pitcher goes back to wind up. If it's my pitcher, I'm telling him to be cautious with any extraneous motion like this.... why give the ump a reason to call balk and give up a run?
Edit: I don't like my answer that much reading it back, though I believe what I'm trying to say is accurate. I guess it comes down to intent; if P is doing something new and different with runner on 3rd, then I'm going to tend to see deception as the intent. If he's been doing it all game with no one on, I'm going to tend to let it go. Still, need to see it live to be certain.
As I said, it might not be a balk; would need to see it to have a firm opinion. But once in contact with the rubber, he can't overtly deceive runner. So if this rocking is a part of his delivery, then varying it pitch to pitch could be intentionally deceptive to hold runner closer. When in contact with the rubber from the wind up, hard to make a move that isn't meaningful to the delivery.
I can't remember the name or even team, but there was an MLB guy in the past couple of years who had a sort of extra rock... what I would describe as a stutter... at the start of his delivery. I remember some discussion that it could have been construed as a balk, but the fact that he did it consistently... with runners on or without... made it a part of his regular delivery and not an attempt at deception. Of course this only comes into play with bases loaded or runner on third when pitcher goes back to wind up. If it's my pitcher, I'm telling him to be cautious with any extraneous motion like this.... why give the ump a reason to call balk and give up a run?
Edit: I don't like my answer that much reading it back, though I believe what I'm trying to say is accurate. I guess it comes down to intent; if P is doing something new and different with runner on 3rd, then I'm going to tend to see deception as the intent. If he's been doing it all game with no one on, I'm going to tend to let it go. Still, need to see it live to be certain.
There is no rule against deception. Pitchers do different things with runners on all the time--shorter deliveries, slide steps, etc.
If you cannot state which rule is being broken, do not call the balk. Actually, I'll edit that: You don't need to know the rule verbatim, but you do need to be able to say what was illegal and why it was.
As I said, if it's my pitcher... he had better not make a lot of extraneous movements once set or from the wind up with runner on third. Of course pitchers do things to deceive runners all the time. But if it's judged to be intentionally deceptive to a runner, it gets called.
As I said, if it's my pitcher... he had better not make a lot of extraneous movements once set or from the wind up with runner on third. Of course pitchers do things to deceive runners all the time. But if it's judged to be intentionally deceptive to a runner, it gets called.
No, it's not. It has to violate one of the provisions of the balk rule in whichever ruleset you are using.
"Deception" -- This is one of the terms that I think has been around, and used long enough, that I believe everyone just assumes it is in the rule book.
I can't tell you how many games I have coached where the opposing coach, or umpire is describing the balk - " the move was intended to deceive" the runner. Heck, I tell BFS Jr., to do everything that is legal, "in order to deceive" the base runner....and it is up to the umpires to rule on whether his move is legal or not, but deception is not, and should not be considered.
I would imagine there are quite a few things a pitcher can do that are unorthodox for sure, however do not break any rule, therefore other than looking different, it is not a balk, even if it is done differently each time. No different than a quick slide step, versus a slower delivery....both very different, and both very legal, provided the pitcher came to a complete stop first.
"Deception" -- This is one of the terms that I think has been around, and used long enough, that I believe everyone just assumes it is in the rule book.
The problem is that it is, just not in the rule itself, but in a comment meant to explain it. That comment is often taken the wrong way--that deception is the reason for a balk, but the intent is quite the opposite: if there is a technically illegal move that does not intend to deceive or does not gain an advantage, ignore it. It's not meant to cause more balks, but to reduce them.
As I said, if it's my pitcher... he had better not make a lot of extraneous movements once set or from the wind up with runner on third. Of course pitchers do things to deceive runners all the time. But if it's judged to be intentionally deceptive to a runner, it gets called.
No, it's not. It has to violate one of the provisions of the balk rule in whichever ruleset you are using.
1. Yes, it does get called... because I've seen it called.
2. As I said previously, if the rocking motion is perceived to be part of the delivery... then what was described in the OP is quite possibly a balk. And for the third time, hard to tell without seeing it.
As I said, if it's my pitcher... he had better not make a lot of extraneous movements once set or from the wind up with runner on third. Of course pitchers do things to deceive runners all the time. But if it's judged to be intentionally deceptive to a runner, it gets called.
No, it's not. It has to violate one of the provisions of the balk rule in whichever ruleset you are using.
1. Yes, it does get called... because I've seen it called.
2. As I said previously, if the rocking motion is perceived to be part of the delivery... then what was described in the OP is quite possibly a balk. And for the third time, hard to tell without seeing it.
1. Then it's an incorrect call.
2. You were saying that if F1 changed his delivery with runners on, you'd be more inclined to call it. That is nowhere in the rule, and contradicts the concept of motion normally associated with the pitch.
I see now that the point of this exercise was for you to shine a light on your knowing the subtle balk rule distinction re deception that you laid out to BFS. That's fine, and congratulations for knowing this. From a baseball standpoint... the meaningful reality is that extraneous movements will tend to get called. And balks for deception absolutely get called all the time. P would be ill-advised to rely on the distinction that you point out. My guess is that the runner from third will score via a balk call maybe a third to 2/3rds of the time in the OP example... based either on perception that it's a changing part of the delivery or that it's deceptive.
I see now that the point of this exercise was for you to shine a light on your knowing the subtle balk rule distinction re deception that you laid out to BFS. That's fine, and congratulations for knowing this. From a baseball standpoint... the meaningful reality is that extraneous movements will tend to get called. And balks for deception absolutely get called all the time. P would be ill-advised to rely on the distinction that you point out. My guess is that the runner from third will score via a balk call maybe a third to 2/3rds of the time in the OP example... based either on perception that it's a changing part of the delivery or that it's deceptive.
I'm going to be very blunt here. Instead of thinking it's a pissing contest, maybe, just maybe you should realize there is a right way and wrong way to umpire, and figure out which side you want to be on. You want to talk about things "from a baseball standpoint?" Learn it, first. Either learn, or stop wasting our time. With the way you are talking, you umpire based not on knowledge and mechanics, but because of informal concepts that you think are correct. What is presented here is a valuable resource, and I don't think you really grasp where the information that is presented comes from.
What I have been saying is not a "subtle distinction." We learn all aspects of the rules to do our job, the black, white, and gray. This isn't some esoteric concept that I'm pointing out here--it's taught at any clinic that covers balks.
I see now that the point of this exercise was for you to shine a light on your knowing the subtle balk rule distinction re deception that you laid out to BFS. That's fine, and congratulations for knowing this. From a baseball standpoint... the meaningful reality is that extraneous movements will tend to get called. And balks for deception absolutely get called all the time. P would be ill-advised to rely on the distinction that you point out. My guess is that the runner from third will score via a balk call maybe a third to 2/3rds of the time in the OP example... based either on perception that it's a changing part of the delivery or that it's deceptive.
I'm going to be very blunt here. Instead of thinking it's a pissing contest, maybe, just maybe you should realize there is a right way and wrong way to umpire, and figure out which side you want to be on. You want to talk about things "from a baseball standpoint?" Learn it, first. Either learn, or stop wasting our time. With the way you are talking, you umpire based not on knowledge and mechanics, but because of informal concepts that you think are correct. What is presented here is a valuable resource, and I don't think you really grasp where the information that is presented comes from.
What I have been saying is not a "subtle distinction." We learn all aspects of the rules to do our job, the black, white, and gray. This isn't some esoteric concept that I'm pointing out here--it's taught at any clinic that covers balks.
Ok, Matt13. You're the unquestioned arbiter of the baseball rule book and you're providing a vital service here on the hallowed umpire section of the HSBBW. Didn't realize we needed to speak in hushed tones here in your sanctuary. Unlike you, I make no claim to omniscience on the subject of umpiring... Or anything else. I was simply talking a little baseball here on the old baseball board. Who'd have thought. Nevermind that what I wrote from the start was basically correct... The point is that it was not correct enough for you apparently... And you needed to try to make a point of it.
My guess is that you call ballgames the same way... rabbit ears and all about you. Thankfully most umps aren't like that. I'll hit the showers now...
I see now that the point of this exercise was for you to shine a light on your knowing the subtle balk rule distinction re deception that you laid out to BFS. That's fine, and congratulations for knowing this. From a baseball standpoint... the meaningful reality is that extraneous movements will tend to get called. And balks for deception absolutely get called all the time. P would be ill-advised to rely on the distinction that you point out. My guess is that the runner from third will score via a balk call maybe a third to 2/3rds of the time in the OP example... based either on perception that it's a changing part of the delivery or that it's deceptive.
I'm going to be very blunt here. Instead of thinking it's a pissing contest, maybe, just maybe you should realize there is a right way and wrong way to umpire, and figure out which side you want to be on. You want to talk about things "from a baseball standpoint?" Learn it, first. Either learn, or stop wasting our time. With the way you are talking, you umpire based not on knowledge and mechanics, but because of informal concepts that you think are correct. What is presented here is a valuable resource, and I don't think you really grasp where the information that is presented comes from.
What I have been saying is not a "subtle distinction." We learn all aspects of the rules to do our job, the black, white, and gray. This isn't some esoteric concept that I'm pointing out here--it's taught at any clinic that covers balks.
Ok, Matt13. You're the unquestioned arbiter of the baseball rule book and you're providing a vital service here on the hallowed umpire section of the HSBBW. Didn't realize we needed to speak in hushed tones here in your sanctuary. Unlike you, I make no claim to omniscience on the subject of umpiring... Or anything else. I was simply talking a little baseball here on the old baseball board. Who'd have thought. Nevermind that what I wrote from the start was basically correct... The point is that it was not correct enough for you apparently... And you needed to try to make a point of it.
My guess is that you call ballgames the same way... rabbit ears and all about you. Thankfully most umps aren't like that. I'll hit the showers now...
Smh...You just proved my point. I have never claimed to be omniscient. However, my experience speaks for itself. If I wanted this to be about me, I could have very easily made it that way. What I am about to say is the most that I will ever go into when it comes to where I've been and what I've done.
I've been extremely fortunate in my baseball career. I got off to a good start with strong support, so now I've been doing this for 19 years, and still am not old enough to run for President. I had a professional (then AAA, now MLB) mentor at 17 who helped me move out of youth ball, and with each step and level I experienced, I had other mentors along the way, each bringing their own unique take on umpiring, from old-school guys who have done it for half a century, to new-school guys instructing me, and everything and everyone in between. These people not only shared their time and wisdom, but in some cases their resources to get me tools and learning I would not have otherwise had.
I come on this board for two reasons--to learn from other experienced umpires who may have different takes on things, and to help those who may not have the experience or access to the tools that help one become better. It is the least I could do, because without those people willing to help me, I would have never set foot on the field in the places I did.
So, long and short, if you want to think that I think I'm some god among mortals, feel free. I know what I say, I know why I do, and I know that you have no clue as to who I am or where I've been. If I truly had the ego that you imply I do, I wouldn't even be on this board.
I've gotta agree with Matt. You must be able to explain the violation. Telling a knowledgeable coach that a balk was called because the pitcher deceived the runner will not advance your career.
A ton of great info and opinions here. Most concerning is no response from OP. 
There are plenty of balks which entail zero deception (which must be called anyway), and plenty of legal moves which are nothing but deception.
An umpire should never call a balk unless he can explain it in five words or less. Some examples (some overlap):
No stop.
He started and stopped.
No step.
Didn’t gain distance and direction.
He didn’t step off.
He separated his hands.
He dropped the ball.
No play was being made.
He faked to first.
If the umpire says the pitcher was trying to deceive the runner, then you are most likely watching a little league game.
