Why Major League Baseball Needs to Update Their Balk Policy: Legalize It (Don't Criticize It)
by jessef on May 18, 2009 10:33 PM EDT
in Fun
27 comments
There have been times when I'll be watching a game and in the moments before a crucial pitch, seemingly out of nowhere, the batter starts pointing at the pitcher. I'll have no idea what's going on until the umpire steps out, points at the pitcher as well, and calls a "balk." In last night's New York Mets - San Francisco Giants game, Mike Pelfrey, of the Mets, balked three times, the most in a game since Al Leiter did the same with the Blue Jays back in 1994. In the bottom of the eighth inning of this afternoon's Blue Jays game, Octavio Dotel made a motion that could have balked in the potential game-winning run. The rule was not enforced in that case, but was it a balk or not?
Now, almost every baseball fan knows what happens when a balk occurs -- all the runners move up one base -- but if you don't know what actually constitutes a balk, don't worry, you aren't alone.
Well, let's take a look at what the rules actually call a balk (courtesy of http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp), Rule 8.05 of MLB's Official Rulebook. Please bear in mind that I've only highlighted the more common balk occurrences:
8.05(a)
The pitcher, while touching his plate, makes any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make such delivery8.05(c)
The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base8.05(d)
The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play8.05(h)
The pitcher unnecessarily delays the game (Steve Trachsel)8.05(j)
The pitcher, after coming to a legal pitching position, removes one hand from the ball other than in an actual pitch, or in throwing to a base8.05(k)
The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball
But this, to me, is the most important part of Rule 8.05 . . .
Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the "intent" of the pitcher should govern
And, so, what we see is that when umpires are calling balks on pitchers who are distracted by runners -- unless there is a deliberate attempt to deceive -- they aren't actually enforcing the rules as written. There is no such thing as an "accidental balk," because if it is accidental then it is, by definition, not a balk.
When left-handed pitchers make "balk" pickoff moves, where they step halfway between home and first base, they are breaking the rules for stepping directly towards a base before throwing to it and they are doing it to deliberately deceive the base runner. However, there is some sort of unwritten policy amongst Major League Baseball that they do not enforce this rule. I am not sure about how long this policy has been in effect, but the most balks any pitcher has had in his career is 90 by Steve Carlton, who also picked off 144 baserunners. Imagine how difficult it would be to run on him today, when lefties don't worry about being called for balking at all.
So why do umpires enforce the balk rule when a pitcher is not deliberately trying to deceive the runner, but they do not enforce the rule when the pitcher is?
Well, some of them don't. Former MLB umpire Ron Luciano has said, "I never called a balk in my life. I didn't understand the rule." Well, perhaps that's because the way the rule is enforced today is not the way that it's written.
0 recs |
27 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I just think it has to be something that the MLB starts encouraging their MiLB umpires to start calling over the next year or so and then enforce stricter calling of the rule in the MLB.
I do believe that it simply does not get called nearly enough.
I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it. ~Rogers Hornsby
by wroth91 on May 18, 2009 11:46 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think you misread the rule...
“If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern"
The key portion is, “if ther is doubt in the umpire’s mind”. This means that if the umpire is uncertain whether or not it was a balk, if he is unsure, then he should go by the perceived “intent” of the pitcher.
It does not apply to situations where there is no doubt in the umpire’s mind that a balk occurred.
Thus the rule as written is consistent.
by Theodles on May 18, 2009 11:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The rule is
consistently inconsistent then.
AWmusic - mp3 blog on independent music..
by achengy on May 18, 2009 11:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Proper argumentation...
is welcome. Useless yes, no arguments are not.
Jess is wrong. The rule allows for an “accidental” balk as I’ve clearly demonstrated. His mistake was due to a misunderstanding of the rule as written.
Upon what basis is your comment written?
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm.
As noted in the body, a Major League Umpire admitted that he didn’t understand the balk-rule. I’m glad that you’re here to clarify it for everyone.
Also, I don’t think the “key” part of the comment is the “doubt” part. Note how it says “Bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the runner.”
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 12:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's a pure judgment call
There is a lack of a letter of the law for the umpire to completely say that there is a balk.
The intent of pitcher can be hard to judge. What is the umpire to do on a slight twitch? Generally during a game it is never very clear within the game if it’s a balk. Leading to pitchers cheating as much as possible.
I think a more important discussion point is enforcing a stricter rule so less cheating is possible.
P.S. I have no basis on my comment? No arguments are not welcome? Psh. This section is called comments and it was merely a comment. I did not offend you but making a point that the consistency of the rule is that it is in fact inconsistent. Need I reiterate such point?
AWmusic - mp3 blog on independent music..
by achengy on May 19, 2009 12:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As for left-handers...
I’ve never really noticed where lefties step, but I’d imagine that if the umps give them certain liberties (and that’s an if, I’m not convinced they do), then righties enjoy the same liberties while trying to pick people off of third.
Because if there is a difference, it probably has to do with the fact that lefties and righties are facing different directions and thus, throw differently.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Okay
1. I didn’t say all lefties balk.
2. Some lefties absolutely step half-way between first and home.
3. Righties do not enjoy the same liberties when trying to pick people off third for at least two reasons:
a. Once on third, a runner is much less likely to try to steal;
b. Fewer runners reach third base, anyway;
c. If righties do try to pick runners off third, and they step towards third the way lefties step towards first, a balk should be called.
My whole point is that MLB enforcement of the balk-rule is inconsistent with the way the rule is written. If you can watch video of Andy Pettitte’s pickoff move and not think that he’s balking, I think you are the one who doesn’t understand what a balk is.
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. Then perhaps instead of referring to “left-handed pitchers”, you should preface it with an adjective like “some”, “the occasional” or something of that sort.
2. Perhaps. I’ve never really looked for a difference between how lefties and righties step off the mound, and due to MLBs copyright police, I can’t. But I freely admit it’s a possibility. Never claimed it wasn’t.
3. Logical error. None of your points demonstrate that they do not enjoy the same liberties (if they exist), only that lefties are in the more advantageous position with regards to their liberties (if they exist) due to the frequency of men on first and the likelihood of men stealing second versus men stealing home.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. The phrasing was, “When lefthanded pitchers.” I don’t see how this implies all lefties. If I had said, “When people drink cheap scotch,” I wouldn’t be implying that all people drink cheap scotch.
2. You said you weren’t convinced they did. All I did was assure you that they do.
3. You are right, except you’ve missed the whole point, which was that righties should be called for a pickoff if they tried the same move to pick runners off third.
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 12:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1. The phrasing was actually "When left-handed pitchers make “balk” pick off moves. You see in this case, the quotation marks surrounding the word “balk” imply that what you really meant was "When left-handed pitchers make pick off moves (those moves being balks). Else, the correct phrasing likely would have been, "When left-handed pitchers make balk pick off moves (no quotation marks). This would put forth the concept that you’re only targetting left-handed pitchers who make balk pickoff moves as opposed to left-handed pitchers who make pickoff moves (e.g. all of them) and that those pickoff moves are balks.
3. I understood your point. But your point wasn’t relevant to your disagreement about the liberties aspect. =)
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Not sure how that changes anything. If I’d said, “When people drink ‘cheap’ scotch” would that imply that all people drink scotch that’s actually cheap?
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 1:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh...no...not a major league umpire!!!!
Guess what? The fact that an ump doesn’t know the rule means very little. Do you know that 5 or 10 years after their driving exams, most people don’t know all the rules of the road?
The fact is, in every profession, you study hard, you learn enough to get into it, and then over time you forget pretty much everything you don’t use regularly.
The rule itself as written, isn’t too hard to understand. But because balks are so rarely called, some umps likely don’t know the ins and outs of the rule besides its basic aspects (e.g. illegal pitch).
Does that mean the rule is bad?
Not necessarily. It may just mean that some umps are incompetent and shouldn’t be officiating.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:23 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I noticed that you didn't address the fact that the comment begins with
“Bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the runner.”
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 12:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Oh, sorry. You’re wrong. The second sentence obviously follows from the first. They go together like PB&J yo. =) The second sentence of the comment modifies the first and shows how to apply the concept inherent in the comment.
That application is:
“If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind (about a balk presumably), then look at the intent. If there is no doubt, this commentary on the rule isn’t relevant.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The reason the MLB might have for instituting such a procedure is likely to do the fact that sometimes calling a balk can be extremely subjective and it may be difficult to determine whether it was a balk or not.
If that’s the case, the MLB likely does not want umpires calling a balk unless they actually believed the pitcher was trying to deceive the base runner.
It’s likely designed to prevent over-penalization and tilt close calls in favour of innocent pitchers.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:42 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Innocent in the sense that they’re lacking a guilty mind. =)
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:43 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Huh?
“If that’s the case, the MLB likely does not want umpires calling a balk unless they actually believed the pitcher was trying to deceive the base runner.”
This is exactly what you’ve been saying made no sense and what I’ve been arguing is how the rule should be interpreted.
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 12:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think the point of using the ump's quote begs the question:
Do umps not remember the rules because it’s rarely called or is it a rarely called because the umps don’t know the rules?
I think I made the intent and general idea behind the question clear. Discuss if possible.
I don't want to play golf. When I hit a ball, I want someone else to go chase it. ~Rogers Hornsby
by wroth91 on May 19, 2009 3:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think it's both
Some umpires probably don’t feel comfortable issuing balks because it is an unclear distinction. Also, don’t forget, the balk is something that is supposed to be used as a penalty to a pitcher for attempting to cheat . . . it is not meant as a reward to the opposing team, as a walk would be, so when a pitcher is obviously doing it accidentally and is not trying to deceive the runner, I’m not sure I see the point of enforcing the rule. I guess ignorance of the law isn’t an excuse for breaking it, but I’m just kind of befuddled by why some pitchers get away with deliberately balking and others get caught accidentally doing so.
And while some might say that the result is the same, that’s not actually true, because the result of balking should be that the runner is deceived and prevented from getting a good jump or is picked off. In the case of accidental balking, the runner generally is not deceived at all, and certainly is neither prevented from getting a good jump nor picked off.
I wonder if the umpire took this into account when deciding whether or not to enforce the rule during yesterday’s game. As a Jays fan watching, I would not have felt cheated if Bautista hadn’t scored on Rios’s triple, because the Jays did absolutely nothing to earn that balk.
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 9:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
No.
I stated if that’s the case, with reference to subjective, difficult to determine instances. In those cases, then an umpire should look at intent.
There are many other cases though.
E.g.
Purposefully or accidentally dropping the ball
The pitcher, while giving an intentional base on balls, pitches when the catcher is not in the catcher’s box
In these cases and a few others, the pitcher might have an innocent mind. But the pitcher still did something wrong, and there’s no question that he did something wrong. It’s not a close call. It’s not subjective. And thus, there’s no need to look at the pitcher’s intent. It’s a balk.
The issue about intent only comes into play when the umpire is unsure if there was a balk or not. In many instances, though, it’s quite obvious that there was, and so the umpire doesn’t give a whit about what the pitcher intended.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 12:57 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The point is that it's unnecessary enforcement.
It’s like issuing a speeding ticket for driving ten km/hr over the limit on an open road in nice weather. My point is that the purpose of the rule is one thing and its enforcement is not furthering that purpose.
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 1:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe in issuing speeding tickets to people driving over the speed limit, no matter what the circumstances are. I don’t think anybody should get off if they violate the law. Rules are rules for a reason. Speeding endagers lives. Penalizing people who speed, no mater how little, upholds the integrity of the legal system/Highway Traffic Act/(whatever relevant act).
And I’m sure that MLB feels that violation of their rules violates the integrity of the game or some such and thus it’s of the utmost importance to enforce said rules.
Having said that, I’m not going to disagree that it’s possible some umps are doing a bad job of interpreting the rule as written. They probably are.
My only disagreement with you stemmed from your assertion that:
“unless there is a deliberate attempt to deceive — they aren’t actually enforcing the rules as written. There is no such thing as an “accidental balk,” because if it is accidental then it is, by definition, not a balk"
since by the rules as written and the comment, that was completely false =D
I have no opinion on the actual enforcement of the rule by umps and how well they’re doing.
by Theodles on May 19, 2009 1:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
coming late to this
but jessef is at least partially correct, if a little off. It’s true, an “accidental balk” is possible under the rule, which, on its face, doesn’t require that the umpire try to divine the pitcher’s intent unless there is some doubt in the mind of the umpire as to whether a balk occurred.
However, as the comment says, the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the runner. Therefore, calling an “accidental balk” on the pitcher patently doesn’t really square with the purpose of the rule as stated. I generally don’t have a problem with that, because the purpose of the rule is served by strict enforcement of the rule on its terms, so that it is clear to everyone what is and what is not a violation. That said, that is exactly what does not happen with the balk rule, which I think was jessef’s whole point.
"Let us go forth awhile, and get better air in our lungs. Let us leave our closed rooms... The game of ball is glorious." - Walt Whitman
by hugo on May 19, 2009 6:50 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
Exactly. My problem with the enforcement of the balk is not that they don’t call it for “balk pickoffs” or that they do call unnecessary accidental balks, it’s that they do both at the same time.
I don’t see how you can allow a pitcher to deliberately deceive the runner AND step in a direction that is not towards the base but you can’t allow a pitcher to accidentally flinch.
"The NY Mets are my favorite squadron" -- Apu Nahasapeemapetilon
by jessef on May 19, 2009 8:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ron Luciano, who wrote three books on his umpiring career back in the 1980's
Said he only once in his career called a balk, and then was when the ball came out of the pitcher’s hand at the top of his wind up. He also said that even then he let it bounce twice before he called it.
by Tom Dakers on May 19, 2009 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
In all honesty I just agree that the balk rule is not enforced enough and consistently. But I don’t see how this is going to change if there are umpires, retired or not, that don’t fully understand the rule.
by bradboyes26 on May 19, 2009 5:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- CC Sabathia mocks Hamels' video grenade ad with one of own
- Spring Snapshot: Angels look to retain their iron grip on AL West
- Mathis hopes strong postseason will translate into better at-bats
- Rangers manager Ron Washington regrets cocaine use in '09
- Nationals release Elijah Dukes, though nobody's quite sure why
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
