You guessed incorrectly. Saw it up pretty clearly, have seen it several times since then on tape. He went past the base, no matter how slightly, made contact with the fielder outside the baseline, and the official IMO, correctly ruled interference. It may be "good, solid baseball" as you say, but it was illegal and was correctly enforced...bottom line.

 

The second baseman never attempted to throw to first so your first explanation is incorrect. I'd watch the film again. I've said before and will continue to say it's a junk rule. Go back and read some, I've conceded the fact that the ump may have made the correct call according to the rules. My point is that the rule needs to be changed or at least modified.

The second baseman never attempted to throw to first so your first explanation is incorrect. I'd watch the film again. I've said before and will continue to say it's a junk rule. Go back and read some, I've conceded the fact that the ump may have made the correct call according to the rules. My point is that the rule needs to be changed or at least modified.

 

I saw the very same call in the Scott High versus Harrison County game at Campbell County in the 10th Region Tournament. Of course since we were playing at Campbell County, the call was against Harrison County and their runner going to first was also called out.

VMA - I assume you are using the penalty in 4.03a as your supporting evidence for a fielder that is in foul territory resulting in a balk. Unfortunately, that penalty only deals with leaving too early on an intentional walk. It has nothing to do with what you are arguing. There is no penalty for the 'fielder's balk' in OBR.

This is a commonly misconstrued rule, especially at the H.S. level and below. There is no "fielders balk", its a myth, in the form you are describing it. First off, as expressed by Mr. Tackett himself this winter, a fielder can have one foot in fair territory and one foot in foul ground and be legal. Just as you are still considered in the field of play when you make a catch near a dugout and have one foot inside the dugout, and one foot out. If the fielder has two feet outside the lines, then we only have 7 in the field of play. Since no play can start without 8 in between the lines, we have a dead ball until that fielder gets back in fair ground. I suppose the only way you could have a fielders balk is to have a player move over the lines before the TOP, but after he originally sets up(which would be next to impossible). Reference rule 1-1-4, "At the TOP, all fielders shall be on fair ground except the catcher who shall be in the catcher's box. A fielder is in fair ground when at least one foot is touching fair ground. So actually, your both wrong, if I'm reading the posts correctly.

The second baseman never attempted to throw to first so your first explanation is incorrect. I'd watch the film again. I've said before and will continue to say it's a junk rule. Go back and read some, I've conceded the fact that the ump may have made the correct call according to the rules. My point is that the rule needs to be changed or at least modified.

The rule is fine, and serves the purpose it was intended to, to protect the players. This is not professional baseball, and shouldn't be treated as such. The main problem with the rule is that its not called enough during the regular season, so when the "better" umpires come out in the postseason, teams are hit with it early and often. How hard is it to slide directly into the bag? In essence, that is what the rule states, because we don't want KIDS getting dumped on their heads trying to turn a DP. How can you modify it without that happening? Because you know darn well that if it was modified that the scene described above would be played out over and over. Just like you can't cut block downfield in football, this rule is about protecting the kids, as most FED rules are, and since less than 1% of them will be professional athletes, I'd say that's probably a good idea. :thumb:

QS, and anyone else for that matter....what was so poorly officiated in the title game? The two calls that have been discussed, (the catcher's balk, which is rarely called at ANY level), and the interference play at second (which I saw with a good angle) that was the right call, though not a popular one. There was a tangle up at third that COULD have been obstruction, but the tangle up was going back to the base,not with the runner trying to advance. In my judgement, it could have been called if the runner had then tried to make it home, but he didn't. But that one was IFFY at best. And, I saw a mechanics error with the ump at second coming to third (with a runner) to make a call with the third base ump standing there (which was definitely the right call BTW). Mechanics errors sometime happen when you go to four man because this is the only time all year that you work with that many umps. They have a two hour class the day before the tournament starts to go over coverages but it's difficult to get in the flow because you have to think quite a bit prior to the play happening (ex. ball hit to right field with runner on first, two outs, I go here, check tag there, watch touch of base here). It's tough because we do it so rarely. We do two man all year, three man in the district, and four man in the regional. And, the plate umpire (who is the umpire in chief for the day) calls the coverages in pregame and not all umps do things the same way. (I know, I know, we should go by the book, but there are options, such as which side of second that the second base umpire should set up on in four man with runners on). So at best, four man is sort of strange, even with a crew that have worked a lot together, which these umpires had not due to being from different regions. But, back to my original point, what was so terrible about the officiating? It appeared to me that the plate ump had a good consistent strike zone. All of the safe-outs I saw appeared to be correct. There was only one banger that I remember at first and I thought the ump got it right. Anyone who was at the finals, weigh in here. What was so bad? I did see a couple of judgement calls in the semi-finals that I thought were booted, but none of them changed the course of either game. I did not see Wednesday or Thursday night's games so I can't comment on them. Where they THAT bad?

I agree with this. And I'll add a little bit of my own two cents. Guys, these guys aren't professional umpires, they do miss calls. The catcher's balk was, IMO, a very tough call, considering the situation. Nonetheless, it was a blown call, IMO. Most of these guys have regular 9-5's, and just do this on the side. You want every call right, all the time? Pay them what the Major League guys get, I guaruantee they'll be able to take some time off from their "day jobs" to work on getting it right. Heck, pay them more than $50 a game, and I'm sure we can get some more guys out that "know the rules". If I'm not mistaken, a call was booted in the World Series last year, no? It happens, its part of the game. If it wasn't, we'd just hook a computer up to the bases and the ball and it could record balls/strikes/outs. But who'd want that?

 

On a side note, think about this call for a second:

 

Bot 7th, 1 out 0-0 score, Texas 6A(or whatever the largest division is down there) State Championship game.

 

Batter walks.

 

Next batter attempts to bunt runner over into scoring position. Bunt travels down the 3rd base line. The catcher waits for it to roll foul, and it doesn't, it sits on the line. The catcher then scoops it up with his mask. By rule, that's 3 bases. Game over, state championship decided on that play. The umpire who made the call received death threats on his family, vandalism to his home, etc., etc. The umpire decided that all of this wasn't worth the $50 bucks he gets a game, and quit, despite being a very good umpire(and getting that call right). This is why you don't have the "good" umpires you clamor for, keep that in mind.

SM - your statement has a lot of holes in it.

 

Possibly, I've been wrong before. I try to keep my posts brief. I thought this was on a pitch. At the time of the pitch, if the catcher was in the box, then no balk. If he left early, then it's a balk. What things, if any, did I miss in this case? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what did I miss?

The rule is fine, and serves the purpose it was intended to, to protect the players. This is not professional baseball, and shouldn't be treated as such. The main problem with the rule is that its not called enough during the regular season, so when the "better" umpires come out in the postseason, teams are hit with it early and often. How hard is it to slide directly into the bag? In essence, that is what the rule states, because we don't want KIDS getting dumped on their heads trying to turn a DP. How can you modify it without that happening? Because you know darn well that if it was modified that the scene described above would be played out over and over. Just like you can't cut block downfield in football, this rule is about protecting the kids, as most FED rules are, and since less than 1% of them will be professional athletes, I'd say that's probably a good idea. :thumb:

 

This is crap. What's easier? Sliding into a base going full speed without going over the bag or popping up? Or, stepping out of the way when you receive a throw from another fielder? Try sliding into a base full speed without going over it or popping up, your ankles will love you for it.

 

If people are worried about being safe, play tennis. I'm all for calling kids out or throwing them out for malicious contact or coming in high but this is/was nothing of the sort. This is not about "dumping kid on DP's". This wasn't even close to that.

FEDUMP is right on the line. Good explanation. Just remember, there are no terms in any OFFICIAL BASEBALL rulebook concerning a "fielder's balk" or "catcher's balk". The illegal actions of a fielder other than the pitcher can result in the "pitcher's pitch" being ruled a balk. I think using those terms is creating the confusion for most fans. The actions by the catcher in this case should have been recognized as an "illegal action" and caused the "pitch" to be ruled a balk. I just have to question how a home-plate umpire can miss the catcher in front of him leaving his box that early. An object that size suddenly is up and moving out of your in-front vision and the pitcher has not released the ball for the pitch? Maybe the play was a lot closer and not so obvious on the leave-time. That could account for the umpire not making that call.

Possibly, I've been wrong before. I try to keep my posts brief. I thought this was on a pitch. At the time of the pitch, if the catcher was in the box, then no balk. If he left early, then it's a balk. What things, if any, did I miss in this case? I'm not trying to be a jerk, but what did I miss?

 

You may understand it 100% but your previous wording was vague:

 

Funny, I thought we were talking about a catcher's balk. If the catcher left the box before the ball was pitched, balk, if not, well...not.

 

.

 

"Before the ball was pitched" leaves a lot of openings. The rule, as you mention in your reply, states at "time of pitch" which is when the pitcher commits himself to coming to the plate. "Left the box" - is that one foot out or two feet out of the box?

 

Again, you may have it down cold but to the reader of your original simplification, it could be misleading.

This is crap. What's easier? Sliding into a base going full speed without going over the bag or popping up? Or, stepping out of the way when you receive a throw from another fielder? Try sliding into a base full speed without going over it or popping up, your ankles will love you for it.

 

If people are worried about being safe, play tennis. I'm all for calling kids out or throwing them out for malicious contact or coming in high but this is/was nothing of the sort. This is not about "dumping kid on DP's". This wasn't even close to that.

 

SM - As you've stated clearly, you dislike the rule for many reasons. However, I don't think you can argue that the rule is in place for safety reasons. Why else would FED change OBRs rules in this case?

An object that size suddenly is up and moving out of your in-front vision and the pitcher has not released the ball for the pitch? .

 

Oldtimer - the rule says nothing about the ball being released. So maybe the guy got it right.

SM - As you've stated clearly, you dislike the rule for many reasons. However, I don't think you can argue that the rule is in place for safety reasons. Why else would FED change OBRs rules in this case?

 

I'm not arguing the fact that the rule is in place for safety reasons. That's a given. My point is that it should be in for everyone's safety, not just the fielder.

 

At least I don't mean to be arguing that point.:irked:

Gentlemen, the "release" of the ball is what creates and defines the "pitch". Balks can be created and occur before the "release" or pitch. In this case the rule states that the catcher must hold his position in the catcher's box until the ball is "pitched". [ or released ] My paraphrasing to make clear, not the official wording. That box is specific in width and if the catcher is far to the right or left of the umpire it is obvious that he cannot be in the box at that point.

Gentlemen, the "release" of the ball is what creates and defines the "pitch". Balks can be created and occur before the "release" or pitch. In this case the rule states that the catcher must hold his position in the catcher's box until the ball is "pitched". [ or released ] My paraphrasing to make clear, not the official wording. That box is specific in width and if the catcher is far to the right or left of the umpire it is obvious that he cannot be in the box at that point.

 

 

Oldtimer, you are incorrect . The release is not the basis. The "time of pitch" is when the catcher can move. Time of pitch is defined as when the pitcher commits himself to throw to the plate. That is well before the actual release of the pitch.

 

Here is the wording as posted by KYFEDUMP:

 

cshs81, In NFHS Rule 6.1.1, the last sentences states that, "The catcher shall have both feet in the catcher's box at the time of the pitch".

This is crap. What's easier? Sliding into a base going full speed without going over the bag or popping up? Or, stepping out of the way when you receive a throw from another fielder? Try sliding into a base full speed without going over it or popping up, your ankles will love you for it.

 

If people are worried about being safe, play tennis. I'm all for calling kids out or throwing them out for malicious contact or coming in high but this is/was nothing of the sort. This is not about "dumping kid on DP's". This wasn't even close to that.

Look, I know it is difficult, and I understand what you are saying. But we all know what happens. They change the rule, and someone always has to push the limits of the rule. Infielders would be bouncing all over the place. I understand what you are saying about protecting everyone, but its not like the runner doesn't have other options either. He can always "give himself up" and move out of the baseline and away from the throw. Or a headfirst slide(although that might be more dangerous). I don't particularly care for the rule either, but I understand its intent, and I know that relaxing the rule would result in far greater risk of injury. So its worth keeping, IMO.