Skip to main content

Pitcher is in stretch position. Runner on first moves off base. Pitcher quickly places back foot off rubber and throws side arm/underneath body while still bent over. Runner would have been out by a mile. Balk was called. Coaches appeal and say his foot was off rubber. Ump agrees and then says that it was an illegal throwing motion, so either way it was a balk. Is this correct?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by Straightsteal:
Following the inning, coaches talk to home plate ump and he says he's never seen anything like that before. Obviously not common here. Thanks for the info.


Takes a RHP with a strong arm and quick motion. I worked a Cal game a couple of years ago that had a pitcher who could snap it over with very little preparatory motion. Only took two pick-offs for the opposing team to shorten their leads.
Last edited by Jimmy03
Son is the pitcher I'm talking about. Plays travel ball and learned this there. He has used this pick move many times in travel ball games and never got a balk called. Has been able to get outs with it as well. First time he used it in high school varsity play and was shocked by the balk call. Wondered if high school rules are different than travel. This is his first year of high school varsity and it is a lot different than travel. Plays travel with a statewide elite team and plays high school ball at a very small school, so big difference.
Maybe the ump didn't see the foot move behind the rubber and only saw the side arm throw under the body. I could understand a balk call for that. I didn't understand the illegal throwing motion part at all. I thought the premise to all balk calls was obvious deception on the part of the pitcher toward the batter and/or runner. No deception there, it was pretty obvious the pitcher had no intention of throwing a pitch (still bent over and in the stretch position waiting on sign) and the foot was taken off the rubber immediately prior to the throw. The runner had an opportunity to go back to first. Is this description accurate of reasons for balk rules? Maybe just caught the ump off guard? He had made 2 other balk calls in the game against other pitchers, so just tough on balks? Just wondering what the possible reasons behind the call could have been. I'm not an ump and had a hard time understanding the reason behind the call. If Jr. needs to change something on this move to ensure no balk is called, would be a good thing to know.
quote:
Originally posted by Straightsteal:
Maybe the ump didn't see the foot move behind the rubber and only saw the side arm throw under the body. I could understand a balk call for that. I didn't understand the illegal throwing motion part at all. I thought the premise to all balk calls was obvious deception on the part of the pitcher toward the batter and/or runner. No deception there, it was pretty obvious the pitcher had no intention of throwing a pitch (still bent over and in the stretch position waiting on sign) and the foot was taken off the rubber immediately prior to the throw. The runner had an opportunity to go back to first. Is this description accurate of reasons for balk rules? Maybe just caught the ump off guard? He had made 2 other balk calls in the game against other pitchers, so just tough on balks? Just wondering what the possible reasons behind the call could have been. I'm not an ump and had a hard time understanding the reason behind the call. If Jr. needs to change something on this move to ensure no balk is called, would be a good thing to know.

Jr. doesn't need to change anything - the umpire who balked him does. Sounds like the ump saw something unusual and called a balk for that (invalid) reason. The "if it looks like a duck..." philosophy doesn't work with balks, although sadly, I've often heard it advocated.

Add Reply

Post
.
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×