Skip to main content

41 replies

Verlander's "error"

NoReplayNoReplay100+ posts
Did the umps get this call correct?

Tigers/A's game yesterday. JV pitching. Runner on first. 2-0 on batter. Verlander in set. Appears to have a brain ****. He disengages the rubber (by stepping off with back foot), then pegs his throw not towards first but rather toward home (behind the batter in fact) clipping his back foot as he was in batters box. Seemingly everyone on the field forgets what happened or didnt see what happened or is just plain clueless.
Martinez (catching) does not trap or retrieve the ball..just gives Verlander a disbelieving look like wtf was that?
Runner on first just stands there ala knoblauch making arm motions at ump.

Plate ump calls hbp and sends batter to first,advancing runner to second.

Verlander says "wait I stepped off."

Umps huddle.

"New R1" returned to batter position no change in count.

Runner that was on first (old R1) IS LEFT ON SECOND??? (he was advanced to second by umps when hbp ruled, ie he did not take the base on his own while the catcher was not retreiving the errant throw (ball remained on playing field)

So the question I have is why was the runner awarded second not returned to first when the hbp ruling was identified as incorrect and reversed?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
Verlander did not step off. He move his feet as one would do in a jump turn and failed to come set prior to his pitch. It was ugly. U3 properly called a balk that PU did not hear. Umpires huddled and, despite what the announcers said, brought the batter back and advanced the runner as proper enforcement of a balk.
Last edited by Jimmy03
yawetagyawetag100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Verlander did not step off. He move his feet as one would do in a jump turn and failed to come set prior to his pitch. It was ugly. U3 properly called a balk that PU did not hear. Umpires huddled and, despite what the announcers said, brought the batter back and advanced the runner as proper enforcement of a balk.


Jimmy, do you think the batter was hit by the thrown ball?
L LOW337100+ posts
It doesn't matter if DeJesus was hit or not. It was an illegal pitch. Illegal pitch with no one on is a BALL. Illegal pitch with anyone on is a balk.

He was attempting to throw to fist initially but had a brain ****, got locked up and last second decision to throw the ball toward home resulted.

Foot not engaged with the rubber but attempting to make a pitch is an illegal pitch.

correct me if I am wrong
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by yawetag:
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Verlander did not step off. He move his feet as one would do in a jump turn and failed to come set prior to his pitch. It was ugly. U3 properly called a balk that PU did not hear. Umpires huddled and, despite what the announcers said, brought the batter back and advanced the runner as proper enforcement of a balk.


Jimmy, do you think the batter was hit by the thrown ball?


Yep. But that's a non issue.
Last edited by Jimmy03
S schwammi100+ posts
Jimmy03, help me with one thing.....In FED a balk is a dead ball, but I thought it was delayed in OBR, so could the offense not "choose" the HBP thereby advancing both runners or is there a difference between the illegal pitch and a balk call? Seems to me that if I am the offensive HC, I am arguing for the HBP. Is an illegal pitch a dead ball? And if so, in OBR and Fed?
D dash_riprock1,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by schwammi:
Jimmy03, help me with one thing.....In FED a balk is a dead ball, but I thought it was delayed in OBR, so could the offense not "choose" the HBP thereby advancing both runners or is there a difference between the illegal pitch and a balk call? Seems to me that if I am the offensive HC, I am arguing for the HBP. Is an illegal pitch a dead ball? And if so, in OBR and Fed?


There is no option for the O on a balk. Either the balk is ignored (all baserunners and the batter advance at least one base) or it is enforced.
O otownmike100+ posts
quote:
Jimmy, do you think the batter was hit by the thrown ball?


From the replay I saw it did not look like the ball hit the batter however Jimmy has it right with illegal pitch called with runners on base = balk. MLB guys get it right much more than get it wrong. I have to admit I had not seen that in and MLB game before. I thought Verlander was going to throw to first and for some unexplained reason he threw home and behind the hitter.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by NoReplay:
Thankyou.
What was it about his disengagement made it not a step off? ie wahat was wrong with his footwork?

EDIT:

If he had stepped off correctly but still had the brain **** and made the same throw what would the ruling be?


A legal disengagement is step backwards off the back side of the rubber. Verlander did not do this.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by schwammi:
Jimmy03, help me with one thing.....In FED a balk is a dead ball, but I thought it was delayed in OBR, so could the offense not "choose" the HBP thereby advancing both runners or is there a difference between the illegal pitch and a balk call? Seems to me that if I am the offensive HC, I am arguing for the HBP. Is an illegal pitch a dead ball? And if so, in OBR and Fed?


This where umpires will differ depending on their training. As taught proschools. PBUC and found in professional , there is no such thing as a delayed dead ball under pro rules. The ball is either live or dead at any point in time. The reason for this is "delayed dead" assumes that it will always become dead. That isn't the case.

Under OBR the ball is live at the time of the balk and remains live unless the batter and all runners do not advance at least one base. If they do not, then time is killed and awards made.

No choice is made in OBR, either the balk is enforced or it is not in accordance with the result of the play.

In FED, time is called immediatiely at the time of the balk, play is killed and the balk is enforced.
Last edited by Jimmy03
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
Illegal Pitch (MLB Rule Book)

An ILLEGAL PITCH is (1) a pitch delivered to the batter when the pitcher does not have his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate; (2)a quick return pitch. An illegal pitch when runners are on base is a balk.


Correct. And in OBR the jump turn move the Verlander made is considered as still being in contact with the rubber, thus this was not and illegal pitch, but it WAS a balk. While and illegal pitch is a balk, not all balks are illegal pitches, by definition.
L LOW337100+ posts
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/bl...k-of-?urn=mlb-wp3620

I just simply disagree. Had he thrown the ball to 1st base then you could have balked him because there was no step (front foot didn't gain ground toward 1st).

He threw the ball toward Home Plate not anywhere close to 1st base and was not engaged. So I think they got it right. Illegal Pitch with the result being a balk.

Wierd play that may never happen again.

So the way you see it is had DeJesus put the ball in play then that would be ok because it was not an illegal pitch?
Last edited by LOW337
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/bl...k-of-?urn=mlb-wp3620

I just simply disagree. Had he thrown the ball to 1st base then you could have balked him because there was no step (front foot didn't gain ground toward 1st).


A jump turn is specifically allowed in MLB, the pitcher is regarded in contact with the rubber.

IF you're determined to get an illegal pitch, it would better and easier to argue that it was a quick pitch.
Last edited by Jimmy03
L LOW337100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/bl...k-of-?urn=mlb-wp3620

I just simply disagree. Had he thrown the ball to 1st base then you could have balked him because there was no step (front foot didn't gain ground toward 1st).


A jump turn is specifically allowed in MLB, the pitcher is regarded in contact with the rubber.

IF you're determined to get an illegal pitch, it would better and easier to argue that it was a quick pitch.


No doubt that move is legal. I am very well aware of that. However the pitcher must step toward the base he throwing to (gain ground) which Verlander did not do.

My question is with the exact same circumstances in Verlanders case let's say DeJesus puts the ball in play. What do you as an umpire rule?
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
In college and HS pitchers get away with that little spin move and not gain ground or step toward 1st base. In pro ball you get balked for no step.



Are you serious? Balks are called by the rule more in HS, NCAA, Legion, Select ball, and most any other league than in MLB.

It would be nearly impossible to count how many "no-stop" and "start and stop" balks are NOT called in MLB.

That said, the jump turn is SPECIFICALLY allowed in the pros and he gained "enough" distance for that level.
Last edited by Jimmy03
L LOW337100+ posts
Ok Jimmy. Verlander did not step directly to 1st base which by rule is what he is supposed to when using the spin move. He did not throw the ball anywhere near 1st base. He threw the ball toward home plate and I feel he hit DeJesus with the ball in his back foot.

My question is let's assume all is the same EXCEPT DeJesus puts the ball in play. How would you rule it?
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
Ok Jimmy. Verlander did not step directly to 1st base which by rule is what he is supposed to when using the spin move.


The jump turn IS considered a step towards the base if it gains any distance at all, which it did.

quote:
He did not throw the ball anywhere near 1st base.


Which is why it was a balk...he made a move to first and delivered to home.

quote:
He threw the ball toward home plate


This, you got right.

quote:
My question is let's assume all is the same EXCEPT DeJesus puts the ball in play. How would you rule it?


It would still be a balk. In OBR if everyone advance at least one base, including the batter, the balk is ignored, if not, enforce it.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
I dig this stuff Jimmy.....keep going.....

Jimmy, it also states in the MLB rule book that the pitcher must step directly toward the base he throwing to. I doesn't say "enough".


"Directly" has NEVER been the measure for a violation to be called. The proschools and PBUC teach "more to first than to home" which has lead to the mythical coach's rule of the "45 foot line rule."
L LOW337100+ posts
My beef is that he delivered the ball to home plate while clearly not in contact with the rubber.

So are you saying that had he thrown the ball to 1st base they would not have balked him? In my opinion he didn't come close to stepping directly toward 1st base.

He delivered the ball to home plate to try to avoid balking because he got locked up (mentally) and didn't step, that is what he even said he did to avoid getting balked.

The balk is the end result that we do not differ on. I just say that what he did has to be declared an illegal pitch due to not being in contact with the rubber.

I think the if the umpire missed anything he missed DeJesus getting hit with an illegal pitch.

Crazy that this even happened....
Last edited by LOW337
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by LOW337:
My beef is that he delivered the ball to home plate while clearly not in contact with the rubber.[quote]

Okay, last time. The jump turn by definition, is in contact with the rubber.

[quote]So are you saying that had he thrown the ball to 1st base they would not have balked him? In my opinion he didn't come close to stepping directly toward 1st base.


That's a hypothetical...we don't know what the move would look like. He made a legal jump turn so a balk would not be predicated on his the move of his feet.

quote:
He delivered the ball to home plate to try to avoid balking because he got locked up (mentally) and didn't step, that is what he even said he did to avoid getting balked.


Matters not what he said. Umpires have to off what he did.

quote:
The balk is the end result that we do not differ on. I just say that what he did has to be declared an illegal pitch due to not being in contact with the rubber.


You must not be an umpire, or by now you would understand that he was in contact with the rubber due to the jump turn. True it is not a traditional look, but by rule it is contact.


quote:
I think the if the umpire missed anything he missed DeJesus getting hit with an illegal pitch.


It would only be an illegal pitch if it was ruled a quick pitch, again, by the rulebook.

Umpires do not have the luxury to call things other than what they are. Words and terms have meanings.

Here are the the choices I believe they had:

Balk...not coming set
Balk...quick pitch.
Balk...move to first and delivered to home.

I'm sure the umpires were discussing wjo saw what which rule use.

No hard feelings at all, but I've got faculty function to attend and we are now repeating ourselves. Time for me to move on.
Michael S. TaylorMichael S. Taylor1,000+ posts
Things have gone all over so let's refocus.
Verlander stepped off backwards off the rubber, in a seperate step he stepped toward the plate and threw to the plate. What looked odd was he jumped back instead of just stepping but it was a legal disengagment. When he threw to the plate it became an illegal pitch off the plate, which with a runner is a balk. If he hadn't thrown at all he would have been all right. He did not step toward first, I think he wanted to jump to first but he said he hung a cleat.
Jimmy03Jimmy031,000+ posts
I have read numerous accounts of the event, including some of which are alleged to have come from some of the umpires involved.

Some of these include such statements as:

"Typically, when there's a balk called, the hitting team has the option of choosing the result of the play or the balk." - A Detroit sports publication.

Some of you know my son is a MiLB umpire back east. He spoke with two crew members who spoke to him regarding the onfield discussion. At no time, according to him, was the idea that Verlander "stepped off" discussed, and the video, to me, does not show a legal disengagement. To arrive at the decision that Verlander's move was stepping off one would have to disregard the rule book on stepping off and contact with the rubber.

In the onfield discussion, the umpires agreed that the batter was not struck by the ball and that Verlader had balked. Little else was agreed upon. Varous 8.05 violations were discussed and it was given to Hirschbeck to provide any explanation.

After MST's post, I contacted my son again who re-confirmed his conversation. Accordingly, I stand by my post regarding the onfield ruling. I have no idea what transpired after that.
yawetagyawetag100+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Jimmy03:
In the onfield discussion, the umpires agreed that the batter was not struck by the ball and that Verlader had balked. Little else was agreed upon. Varous 8.05 violations were discussed and it was given to Hirschbeck to provide any explanation.


If this is the case, then the umpires got it right.

My contention was that if it was a balk and it hit the batter, he should have been awarded first, as it would have advanced the batter and all the runners one base.
WelpeWelpe10+ posts
quote:
Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
I'm certainly not going to argue with the guys that were there but looking at the video it looks like he steps back and then steps home and threw. If he hadn't thrown home I would have let him go.
Now on the field, they may have viewed it differently but they are doing without the benefit of twenty replays.


Michael, this looks like a failed jump turn to me. Since a pitcher is considered in contact during a jump turn he has to throw to first. Do you see it as him simply disengaging?
Next

Add Reply

Post
.

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Advanced Search
Advanced Search
Link copied to your clipboard.
×