walk off balk

I'm not an umpire, but a balk is a balk.

Nobody likes them, they never happen in good situations, they should be called consistantly and in earlier innings if they really are happening, but a balk is a balk...

the OP infers that the umpires in question called a questionable balk to end the game unfairly...

being an umpire is very different from being an official in a lot of other sports.....In other sports the officials call only infractions of the rules... yet we umpires have to rule on every pitch and every play....we dont get to choose when not to call the rules....

I dont want to work with a partner who doesnt have the courage to make a tough call in the tough situation...

I dont see any difference in this call than the one I made last night....

bottom 7...runners on 2nd and 3rd...2 outs...2 strikes....curve ball for strike 3...game over....end of game...no difference at all...

as far as leaving the field fast, the game and the job is over..there is nothing requiring us to be there...roll the balls to the home dugout and go ....

Not being at the game, I can't comment on the "quality" of the balk call or the absence of earlier calls.

However, a balk is a balk, seventh inning bases loaded or first inning runner at first.

Umpires who make "situational" calls are really umpires who don't have the courage to make the tough calls. They don't normally go far.

I think the original post is remarking on consistency. If a ML Ump called a 13 year game, he would be calling balks left and right. The point was, if they weren't calling balks all night long, why pull it out of the hat at that point in the game.

Where was that "courage" in the 1st through 6th inning?

quote:

The point was, if they weren't calling balks all night long, why pull it out of the hat at that point in the game.

Where was that "courage" in the 1st through 6th inning?

if I miss a pitch for a strike in the 3rd inning should I not call it one in the 6th just because i hadnt call it earlier???.....

Dont know these umpires nor the quality of the OP evaluation of the balk/no balk calls.....but your assertion that there was no courage earlier tells me you have never had to make that call......

a strike 3 or balk or out call in the 3rd doesnt come close to the courage it takes to bang it in the crucial moment....as jimmy states its what separates those who can and those who cant.....

quote:

Originally posted by FastballDad:
I think the original post is remarking on consistency. If a ML Ump called a 13 year game, he would be calling balks left and right. The point was, if they weren't calling balks all night long, why pull it out of the hat at that point in the game.

Where was that "courage" in the 1st through 6th inning?

The umpires here are at a disadvantage. Unlike fans, we can't comment on the OP's opinion that balks were going uncalled. We weren't there.

Thus we are left to discuss the question as to whether or not a balk should be called in the last inning if one hadn't been called previously. The answer is, of course. Call what you see.

This goes the to statement coaches like to pull out of their bag of stupid comments... "You'er going to call that in a game like this?" The later the inning the louder the statement... I just come bsck with "Coach sorry about that but I didn't get the list of rules we are not calling today, next time please make sure you get that list to us before the game starts" They usally go away at that point...

I worked a game in which the conference championship was on the line. All three umpires, in near unison, called a balk for starting and stopping.

The skipper came out with the line, "I can't believe you called that in a game this big." My parter at third replied, "I can't believe your pitcher would balk in a game this big."

Again, understandably Umps stick together.

Again, if any of you umps were doing a 13 year old game at just about any level you could call balks left and right if you knew the rules and decided to call them by the letter of the rulebook. Just about every sport is called with the ability of the age group in mind.

Having coached many, many games at the 13 year old age group (and never having lost to due a balk call) I can say that most umps understand the skill sets of the players and call accordingly. If an ump works a game and ignores balks throughout (as often done at that level) and then calls one that ends the game, you do scratch your head.

I'm sure we all agree that if we didn't notice the umpires were even there, it is a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by FastballDad:
Again, understandably Umps stick together.

Again, if any of you umps were doing a 13 year old game at just about any level you could call balks left and right if you knew the rules and decided to call them by the letter of the rulebook. Just about every sport is called with the ability of the age group in mind.

Having coached many, many games at the 13 year old age group (and never having lost to due a balk call) I can say that most umps understand the skill sets of the players and call accordingly. If an ump works a game and ignores balks throughout (as often done at that level) and then calls one that ends the game, you do scratch your head.

I'm sure we all agree that if we didn't notice the umpires were even there, it is a good thing.

1. As we have tried, apparently in vain, to explain, not being at the game in question, and not willing to take one fans version as fact, we have not addressed the accusation that there were balks ignored. This is not an established fact. Fans are free to accept one sided stories, umpires are not.

2. Who ever first said said that an umpire should be invisible is an idiot. That is a certain recipe for cheating and chaos on the field. Proper game management often calls for an umpire to step up and become very visible.

3. As has been noted, a game ending balk is no different that a game ending called third strike or, for that matter, a game ending call on a banger at first. If you want umpires who are afraid to make any of those call, stick to T-ball.

I'm going to step in as a coach and a father of a 13 year old pitcher.

In all honesty it really doesn't matter if you thought he should have been calling it earlier in the game or not. If you pitcher was committing a balk he was committing a balk and the ump had the right to call it.

It may be frustrating to have it called at that time but the fact of the matter is that your pitcher balked. Maybe the ump was letting it go to a point but at that point it was obvious enough to finally call. Maybe he just plain wasn't noticing it that closely but saw it at that situation.

Ultimately it doesn't matter. Your pitcher balked and was called on it. You can complain about it to the ump but the fact is that what was called was called. You can use it as a teaching point for your kids to improve them. At 13 years of age everything is still in the teaching phase. I suspect that kid on the mound will not make that mistake again.

quote:

Originally posted by FastballDad:
I'm sure we all agree that if we didn't notice the umpires were even there, it is a good thing.

No. This is the dumbest media perpetuated saying I have ever heard. It is ridiculous at its core thought process.

I walked off my games this weekend and the umpires were told we did a good job (Especially in the HS summer game I was by myself for Saturday). I guess we were NOTICED for hustling and making our calls. Even the ones the fans/players/coaches did not like but got over it.

"keep in mind these are 13 yr old kids"

Most 13 year old kids have been pitching for 4 or 5 years. Even in leagues that don't allow stealing at the younger ages, they should have had a couple years to learn the balk rules. If they don't know the rules by now, it's time they learn.


"I will say i have never seen two umps leave the field quicker."

Most umpires are trained to leave the field immediately after the game. Not just after a controversial game-ending call, but every time. Maybe it was just more noticeable this time because the attention was focused on them after the game-ending call.

Players not active in travel ball may well not have had any experience with the balk rule until they start their rec league games in spring of their 13u year.

Typically this is a topic covered at the home plate meeting prior to games -- will there be warnings prior to calls, or will every balk just be called so that they are forced to learn?

My experience was that pretty much everyone agreed to giving a kid one warning (time called) at first, but after that one, you have to start calling them or else the offensive team is put at a disadvantage.

By June, though, everyone should expect the rule to be fully enforced, and I wouldn't even think it would still be coming up at the pregame home plate meeting at that point.

P.S.

I wonder what the sentiment would be if a balk were NOT called, and then the runner got picked off to end a game.

Remember, the rule is there for a reason. If you ask the umps to decide at times to ignore rules, you're asking them to take sides. They can't do this.

quote:

Originally posted by Midlo Dad:
Players not active in travel ball may well not have had any experience with the balk rule until they start their rec league games in spring of their 13u year.

Typically this is a topic covered at the home plate meeting prior to games -- will there be warnings prior to calls, or will every balk just be called so that they are forced to learn?

My experience was that pretty much everyone agreed to giving a kid one warning (time called) at first, but after that one, you have to start calling them or else the offensive team is put at a disadvantage.

By June, though, everyone should expect the rule to be fully enforced, and I wouldn't even think it would still be coming up at the pregame home plate meeting at that point.

I have worked with leagues ove the years that have used a variety warning systems. One league warned once a pitcher all year. We got to the city championship game and the PU and I both banged a balk. The manager wanted to know where was the warning. I told him that it was tournament rules so the warning was gone. The PU almost folded but I was insistant. They protested and their president had to rule. I explained why there was no warning and he reluctantly agreed.
I managed Pony 13/14s and they wanted to warn on opening day, I argued against it. The other coaches said it was opening day and you didn't want to have a bunch of balks called. My point was on opening day you would be starting your ace who is pobably 14 and had a year to learn. If you did have to use a 13 he would probably be a travel pitcher that already knows. I lost that one. But then they wanted to add the first two weeks of the season. I said absolutely not and to me was a deal breaker. I would resign as manager and watch before I would agree. I won that one.
My argument has always been there are in the neiborhood of 21 different balks, do you warn every type for each pitcher? If only one warning what good os that? He gets a warning for blowing a stop then gets called for making an engaged move to first and doesn't throw. My point has always been you can tell pitchers until you are blue in the face what not to do but when they see runners moving and/or scoring they change what they are doing quickly.
If you haven't noticed this is a hot button issue with me. Not calling balks is doing a disservice. It goes back to a quote from my first band instructor,"Practice doesn't make perfect, perfect practice does." In fifth grade I thought he was an jerk but it has been proven true many times since.

quote:

if I miss a pitch for a strike in the 3rd inning should I not call it one in the 6th just because i hadnt call it earlier???.....

I don't think this is a good analogy. Taking what the OP wrote at face value, his claim was that the umps were not calling various balks all game, and then jumped in at this critical time and called a marginal one.

So I think a more proper analogy would be: "If I called an expanded strike zone all game long because of the level of the players, should I not call the OBR strike zone for the last out?"

I think you probably should not.

Again, I am taking the OP at face value. It isn't all that much of a stretch to do so - I have personally witnessed lots of lower age play where they give leeway on balks.

It is much the same thing as having a larger strike zone at the younger levels.

What happened to the good old days of when coaches taught the rules during practice and the umpires then enforced the rules????

When we have umpires having to teach the game through warnings or having umpires look the other way on certain rules due to their age is not good for the game. When you say that a kid shouldn't have a rule enforced due to their age then we need to overhaul the whole league rules. If you have that rule in place then a coach should be teaching that rule in practice and the umpire should be enforcing that rule during games. Yes, pitchers will still break the rules even after being taught but that's the best way to create that "ah-ha" moment where everything clicks and they understand.

I would rather have a kid in 13 years old get called for a balk and learn from it than to let that kid slip through for a couple of years and then I get him at the high school level and he's so set in his ways you can't fix him.

Youth league coaches I beg you to TEACH the game (rules, skills and situations) rather than worry about winning. That will make BASEBALL a better game overall.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
Again, I am taking the OP at face value. It isn't all that much of a stretch to do so

As a fan you are free to do so. As an umpire, I am not. If that were my practice, I'd have to accept whatt TR writes about umpires as correct, as history has shown that's not very often the case.

What I haver personal experience in is coaches yelling "How can you call that in the 7th inning?"

As long as their pitchers "do that" in the 7th inning, it's easy to call.

quote:

Originally posted by coach2709:
What happened to the good old days of when coaches taught the rules during practice and the umpires then enforced the rules????

I dunno, Coach, I dunno.

As I've said before, people playing scrabble learn the rules better than many coaches who take on the responsibility of teaching our youth the game of baseball.

As for warnings: Once at a plate conference a coach asked if we were going to give warnings on balks. I said, "Sure, here's your warning, we're calling balks."

The feedback has been great. Thanks for all the insight. We just thought it was a tough way to end a game. Game was very well played up until that point by both teams. A tough lesson was learned.

What happened to the good old days, when there were such things as practices?

Around here, as the season progresses, you get to a point where there are three rec league team events scheduled each week. 2 games, 1 practice. Except once you get into the season, there are rainouts to be made up. Practices disappear, and all you have are games.

Me, I'd cancel the games and keep the practices. A kid can take dozens of flies, grounders, or swings in a practice; he'll be lucky to get a couple of each in a game.

But by our choice, we make it clear that the games are more important that the game. We'd rather put on our uniforms and let the moms scream and take photos than actually invest time in learning how to play right.

And then we all get snacks and trophies, right?

I tell you, it's all a big commie plot. Brought to you by the folks who prefer s o c c e r.

quote:

As I've said before, people playing scrabble learn the rules better than many coaches who take on the responsibility of teaching our youth the game of baseball.

Do umpires call the strike zone that is in the rule book?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:

quote:

As I've said before, people playing scrabble learn the rules better than many coaches who take on the responsibility of teaching our youth the game of baseball.

Do umpires call the strike zone that is in the rule book?

Are you asking me to answer for every umpire? If not, then Which umpires? Which rule book?

And was does an umpires performance of a rule have to do with a coach's ignorance of a rule?

Whatever...The umpires I have the pleasure to work with in my local association and the various college conferences I work for call the rulebook strike zone to the best of their ability.

They, however, work levels in which that is appropriate. There are levels where it is not.

You have to remember the OBR is written and owned by MLB and its purpose is to regulate a game for adults. They give no consideration to the other organizations that may choose to use their rules.

First of all, Jimmy, I sincerely hope it is not the case that umpires are actually trying to call the rulebook strike zone to the best of their ability. All levels of baseball HS and above define the upper limit of the zone as midway between the shoulders and the waist or belt.

If umpires are actually "trying" to call this zone, they are almost uniformly incompetent. But I guess this is an argument that you are forced to make, given that you slammed coaches for not teaching the kids the rules.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
First of all, Jimmy, I sincerely hope it is not the case that umpires are actually trying to call the rulebook strike zone to the best of their ability. All levels of baseball HS and above define the upper limit of the zone as midway between the shoulders and the waist or belt.

If umpires are actually "trying" to call this zone, they are almost uniformly incompetent. But I guess this is an argument that you are forced to make, given that you slammed coaches for not teaching the kids the rules.

Really? Every umpire is uniformly incompetent? And you base this judgement on what? Seeing at least 1000 umpires per day? I sincerely doubt you've seen all the Oregon umpires much less all umpires.

And on what basis do you compare your ability to interpret the rulebook strike zone to theirs? Do you really believe that what you see from your seat is identical to what an umpire sees from the slot? Really?

Do you believe that a camera off center and at least twice as high off the ground as an umpire records what an umpire sees? Really?

Again, I will speak for the association to which I belong and the conferences in which I work.

And I see no connection between interpretation of a rule umpires know, and coaches, entrusted with the success of their players, not taking the time to learn the rules.

OK, Jimmy, if you want to argue that the high strike per the rulebook is called, go right ahead.

The "high" strike, besides being a misnomer, is grossly exaggerated.

Sometime take a measuring device and actually determine the real midpoint between the shoulders and the top of the uniform pant. It's not that high.

And again, despite your attempt to assign a performance to all umpires, I cannot play that game. I limit my testimony to those of whom I have first hand knowledge.

That midpoint is basically the middle of the chest. So you are arguing that a middle of chest high pitch is called a strike with the umpires with whom you have direct experience?

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
That midpoint is basically the middle of the chest.

Incorrect. Measure again. On the majority of American males it will be below the sternum.

Now measure in a "normal batting stance" which is what we consider, not a straight standing profile.

I give this exercise to coaches in a meeting at the beginning of each season. They are quite amazed at where the high strike really is.

OK, I guess you ARE going to maintain that umpires call the rulebook strike zone with regards to the top of the zone.

Fair enough. You are entitled to your own reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
OK, I guess you ARE going to maintain that umpires call the rulebook strike zone with regards to the top of the zone.

Fair enough. You are entitled to your own reality.

And you are entitled to ignore the issue that was originally addressed and attempt to divert attention to an unrelated issue that suits your reality. You should consider going into talk radio.

The strike zone question was not a diversion, it was a relevant analogy.

The question was essentially whether all balks are or should be called at the younger levels. I made the analogy, arguing that indeed there is leeway for balk calls at the lower levels, that the strike zone is also quite different for lower levels of play.

So an umpire who gave leeway early in the game and then called every balk in the critical seventh inning situation would be unreasonable, just as an umpire who called a larger strike zone early in the game and then called the "rulebook" zone in the 7th inning would be unfair.

It is you who started claiming that all the umpires you know and observe call the rulebook zone.

And as I said, you are entitled to that fantasy.

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
The strike zone question was not a diversion, it was a relevant analogy.

The question was essentially whether all balks are or should be called at the younger levels. I made the analogy, arguing that indeed there is leeway for balk calls at the lower levels, that the strike zone is also quite different for lower levels of play.

So an umpire who gave leeway early in the game and then called every balk in the critical seventh inning situation would be unreasonable, just as an umpire who called a larger strike zone early in the game and then called the "rulebook" zone in the 7th inning would be unfair.

It is you who started claiming that all the umpires you know and observe call the rulebook zone.

And as I said, you are entitled to that fantasy.

You need to re-read your posts. You introduced the irrelevant analogy in a comment regarding my observations about many coaches not bothering to read or understand the rules of a game in which they bear a responsibility to their players.

Later, you reinforced that interruption by direct mention. Now, you've changed your mind, and have decided to, with no facutal information, attempt to refute my direct experience.

Poor form. No substance. Zero points.

OK Jimmy, you get the prize. Let's call it the "Chronic OOO"

quote:

Originally posted by Rob Kremer:
OK Jimmy, you get the prize. Let's call it the "Chronic OOO"

Wow. And name calling, too. I guess you must be right. I bow to your intellectual superiority.

It's all a judgement call based upon the what the umpire sees behind the plate. Not every umpire sees the strike zone the same way. That is why there are hitter's umps and pitcher's umps.

Jimmy03 is applying the rule the correct way but so are the umpires that you may not agree with. It is how the umpire judges the strike zone. I have seen umps that call the 'high strike and others that seem to have a much lower zone.

To be honest, that isn't that important. As a coach all I ever want from an ump is consistancy. Just because I think something is high or low isn't important as long as what the ump calls for one team is the same for the other. Hitters have to adjust to what the strike zone is for each umpire as do pitchers. Yes it can get frustrating but there is no computerized system back there, just a human being that sees what he (or she) sees behind the catcher.

I've had enough opportunity to ump in enough unofficial practice games to appreciate the view from back there. I might not agree with what an ump calls as a strike but as long as he calls what he calls consistantly then I never complain.

Let's get this back on topic. The OP was should balks be called at younger levels. Absolutely and without a doubt. Now that said, what you look for and how particular you are depends on the age group and experience level.
This will open a whole new can of worms but what we look for differs as they move along. In pitchers just learning to hold runners I will be a stickler on stopping, feints to bases and other elephant balks. I will be less worried about the flinches of minor stuff while he is learning. I'm not saying I won't call flinches, it just has a higher threshold.
As they get older you can add the flinch balks and 45 degrees on LHs. As they go along the really technical stuff gets called. Watch what gets balked in MLB and it is so technicalmany miss it.
As to the strike zone debate, how I call a zone is the same from 9/10s to adult. The size is obviously different but the parameters stay the same. What changes is what the catcher lets us see and how he catches the pitches. Each umpire has his own pespective of the zone so what calls is affected by his depth perception, head hieght, ability to track not tunnel, how tired he is, a host of things.
Now there isn't a coach alive that can argue that they think coaches know more about the rules than umpires, on the whole. Most coaches don't eally teach rules in practice, except basics. There are exceptions on both sides of the equations. Remember the old saying,"You play 80% of the game with 20% of the rules."

The best way for a young, inexperienced pitcher to learn what is a balk and what isn't is for the umps to call the balk each time it occurs...and I would hope that if it is a 13 y/o that the ump will explain what he did wrong.

OTOH, I understand where Fastball Dad is coming from. I have coached over 50 teams in my life. I would be VERY unhappy to have many balks missed in a game and then have it ended by one called on my pitcher. IMHO, that is just not right.