The umpiring was fine. The seventh inning contained some controversial calls, the biggest of which penalized Ludlow.

 

What was "controversial" about the balk call?

What was "controversial" about the balk call?

 

It was the right call... Batter asked for time ump didn't give it to him... Hammons stopped his motion in the middle and didn't finish the pitch.

 

You know how balk calls are with the fans though.

It actually wasn't a balk. No member of the offense can induce a balk. The batter stepped out of the box as if he had called time; the umpire didn't grant him time and the ball was live. However, the pitcher didn't throw the pitch because he was under the impression that time had been called. This is a classic example of an induced balk. The batter wasn't trying to induce a balk, but he DID - Hammons' only reason for not throwing the pitch was because he saw the batter step out. If this was legal, batters would try this type of thing all the time in order to score runs, or move the runners over.

 

The balk call should have been a non-call. The umpire should have not allowed anything to happen.

It was the right call... Batter asked for time ump didn't give it to him... Hammons stopped his motion in the middle and didn't finish the pitch.

 

You know how balk calls are with the fans though.

 

 

I'm just curious about this call, did the batter step out of the box or make any other motion that indicated that he had already been granted time? The actions of the batter in these kinds of instances (including yelling TIME, TIME) cannot cause a pitcher to balk. The right call would be a no pitch-do over. OR, is it a HTBT situation?

It actually wasn't a balk. No member of the offense can induce a balk. The batter stepped out of the box as if he had called time; the umpire didn't grant him time and the ball was live. However, the pitcher didn't throw the pitch because he was under the impression that time had been called. This is a classic example of an induced balk. The batter wasn't trying to induce a balk, but he DID - Hammons' only reason for not throwing the pitch was because he saw the batter step out. If this was legal, batters would try this type of thing all the time in order to score runs, or move the runners over.

 

The balk call should have been a non-call. The umpire should have not allowed anything to happen.

 

Well I didn't see the play just going on what I was told. I heard it was a confusing play, but the right call... and that's coming from a Ludlow person.

 

Either way that's why they teach you to just finish the pitch no matter what. Hammons was told that by his coaches I'm sure and he'll learn from it. Great kid who really wants to make himself better.

I'm just curious about this call, did the batter step out of the box or make any other motion that indicated that he had already been granted time? The actions of the batter in these kinds of instances (including yelling TIME, TIME) cannot cause a pitcher to balk. The right call would be a no pitch-do over. OR, is it a HTBT situation?

 

Honestly not sure... I was guessing that he just wanted time and Hammons was the only one who heard/saw him ask for it. I've seen it before where an umpire misses the kid asking for time and the pitcher notices it. They still call it a balk.

Well I didn't see the play just going on what I was told. I heard it was a confusing play, but the right call... and that's coming from a Ludlow person.

 

Either way that's why they teach you to just finish the pitch no matter what. Hammons was told that by his coaches I'm sure and he'll learn from it. Great kid who really wants to make himself better.

 

Definitely true - you should always deliver the pitch to avoid these types of situations. However, coming from someone who was there, the call should not have been a balk.

Honestly not sure... I was guessing that he just wanted time and Hammons was the only one who heard/saw him ask for it. I've seen it before where an umpire misses the kid asking for time and the pitcher notices it. They still call it a balk.

 

The batter held his hand up for time and stepped back, the catcher started to stand up so Hammons stopped, then the Ump called a balk. At least that is what I saw

The batter held his hand up for time and stepped back, the catcher started to stand up so Hammons stopped, then the Ump called a balk. At least that is what I saw

 

I believe that. It happens all the time especially at the high school level. It's just a natural reaction when you see a batter back out or catcher stand up.

 

BTW I've seen a ridiculous amount of umpires mess up a balk call at the high school varsity level, so I'm not at all saying the umpire was right. I didn't see it.

If the batter stepped out of the box with at least one foot without having time granted and the pitcher stopped, as Engineer said, its not a balk. Both players committed a violation. Do over. No pitch.

 

If the batter stepped out illegally and the pitcher had continued with the pitch it would be AT LEAST one strike automatically(even if he threw it 10 feet wide) and could have been called two strikes if BOTH feet were out of the box.

The batter held his hand up for time and stepped back, the catcher started to stand up so Hammons stopped, then the Ump called a balk. At least that is what I saw

 

In that case, it should not have been a balk. I have quoted the entire rule from the 2009 NFHS rule book.

 

NFHS 2009 Rule Book6-2-4-d-1- "if the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time", it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b), and ©, if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a ball or a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter's action to be deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1-o."

NOTE:3-3-1-o mandates ejection for someone that deliberately tries to cause a balk.

Did the batter actually step completely out of the box with at least one foot? Or did he just step back within the box?

 

***Never mind. I just saw the C portion of the rule.

Hooray! I am right!

In that case, it should not have been a balk. I have quoted the entire rule from the 2009 NFHS rule book.

 

NFHS 2009 Rule Book6-2-4-d-1- "if the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with both feet or © holds up his hand to request "Time", it shall not be a balk. In (a) and ©, there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher. The umpire shall call "Time" and begin play anew. In (b), a strike shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b), and ©, if the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a ball or a strike and the ball remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the umpire judges the batter's action to be deliberate attempt to create a balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1-o."

NOTE:3-3-1-o mandates ejection for someone that deliberately tries to cause a balk.

 

The "two strikes on one pitch" may be one of those calls that you hear about but never see.

The "two strikes on one pitch" may be one of those calls that you hear about but never see.

 

Clyde,

Note the part about calling the pitch either a ball or a strike. If a strike on the pitch (you could get another for stepping out with both feet without time), you COULD get two strikes on one play. I've seen it called once in a game several years ago when the HS rules at that time necessitated that the batter keep one foot in the box. As a general rule, you'll never see that called unless some player/team makes a habit of calling time and stepping out before it's granted. If you did have to call it, you could add "eject coach" on the end of the rule.