Calling all umpires: Knotty balk question

In Saturday’s White Sox-Angels game, a balk was called on Jose Quintana. Here’s the clip; here’s the situation:

Men on 2nd and 1st, lefty Quintana in the set position. First baseman Paul Konerko plays in front of the runner, Chris Iannetta, and seems to ignore him. Iannetta has a normal lead. Quintana begins a motion; then Konerko breaks towards the bag, receives the throw on the run, a few feet from the base, and tags Iannetta just before he gets back to the bag. Umpire Ed Hickox calls a balk. ChiSox manager Robin Ventura argues vehemently, and is ejected.

The White Sox announcing crew, whom I heard live on MLB-TV, said the balk was called on the grounds of “throwing to an unoccupied base.” The story on MLB.com says the balk was called because “Konerko was unable to make a play on Iannetta because of his distance from the bag on the throw.” No authority is cited for either claim. The AP story just says that Konerko “was playing way off the bag” and that “Quintana led Konerko to the bag with his throw.” The announcers on the video clip talk in more specific terms, but none of what they say can I confirm in the rule book.

MLB Rule 8.05(d) says it is a balk when: “The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play.” I can find no comment that bears on the present situation.

For all I know, the balk was called for one of the ordinary reasons, e.g., Quintana’s foot crossed behind the rubber, so he had to make a pitch. But if 8.05(d) was the reason for the call, I’m puzzled. How could you say first base was unoccupied? And even if it was, Quintana’s throw clearly was for the purpose of making a play.

Is it a general “attempt to deceive the runner” balk simply because Konerko didn’t move towards the base until Quintana started his motion? If so, what rule obligates Konerko to move? The play began with the runner within Konerko’s reach; if the runner is there, why should the fielder have to go somewhere else to make a play on him? What if the runner had fallen down?

Anyone?

P.S. The balk had no effect on the outcome. Quintana got out of the jam with no runs scoring.

0 0 votes

Article Rating

49 Comments

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Voomo Zanzibar

12 years ago

Here’s the ump’s explanation:

Quintana threw “not directly to first base, but eight to 10 feet toward the second baseman,” Hickox said. “And Konerko was not breaking until after the pitcher threw the ball, and then he was just trying to catch the ball. So in my judgment, there was no attempt to retire the runner.”

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Voomo Zanzibar

Voomo, thanks for providing the quote.

Now, can anyone link up Hickox’s explanation with the actual language of the balk rule?

P.S. While seeking clarification of the “unoccupied base” provision outside of the rules text, I ran into this online exchange involving several umpires (though I wouldn’t presume any were MLB umps). It doesn’t touch on our exact situation, but it’s interesting that there’s so much uncertainty among the guys who have to enforce the balk rule:

http://www.umpire.org/vb/archive/index.php/t-5919.html

RichW

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

The play in last night’s game was clearly to an “occupied” base. I take occupied to mean a base runner not a fielder. The umpire forum was helpful in that one umpire was emphatic that it is required to throw directly to 1B, but not to 2B or 3B. If that is true then Hickox got the call right. What frustrates me is that something that simple is not spelled out directly in 8.05. The commentary for 8.05c is ^^A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him to throw… Read more »

nightfly

12 years ago

Voomo’s got it. The pitcher has to throw his pickoff to the bag, not to the first baseman. Nothing specifically says that Konerko has to start at the bag, but if he breaks late, then Quintana has to lead him better than that. It seems pretty clear that Konerko has to stop his progress and reach back to get the ball – he backhands it rather than catching it in stride.

The rule may make no sense, but that’s the rule.

SocraticGadfly

12 years ago

Reply to nightfly

It horribly doesn’t make sense. If a balk is going to be called on these grounds, hell, let’s outlaw the hidden ball play next.

Doug

12 years ago

It seems more than a little curious for the umpire to call a balk on the ground that there was no attempt to make a play on the runner. Clearly, not only was the attempt made, the tag was applied in time. I wonder what the call would have been had Konerko been on the bag and the throw was several feet towards second base obliging Konerko to come off the bag and just try to catch the ball. Would that also have been a balk because there could be no attempt to retire the runner? Does making a poor… Read more »

Dave

12 years ago

Konerko was actually started bending to get into fielding position then realized the throw was coming over. I think this is clearly a case of a pitcher not “seeing” what he was looking at.

Dave

12 years ago

“I wonder what the call would have been had Konerko been on the bag and the throw was several feet towards second base obliging Konerko to come off the bag and just try to catch the ball.”
***
That would’ve been fine because Konerko was occupying the bag. No foul there.

Jim Bouldin

12 years ago

Good question John–I also fail to see where the rules say anything about this situation. I assumed he was calling it for failure to step directly towards first, but not the case.

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

I went to Brinkman/Froemming Umpire School back in 1994 and have had subsequent conversations about rules issues with Rick Roder, one of my former instructors who is also widely considered a rules interpretation expert. He and one of his colleagues, Chris Jaksa, have produced a rules interpretation manual for years that, while not official, is what many umpires trained by Brinkman/Froemming and the Jim Evans school use. Basically, Jaksa and Roder claim that the major league rule book is so vague and incomplete that an entire manual of interpretations is necessary. If I can dig out my outdated copy of… Read more »

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

“… the major league rule book is so vague and incomplete that an entire manual of interpretations is necessary. “

My sentiments exactly!

Dan, I’d love to hear whether you find this scenario covered in that manual. Is it available to the public, or is it kind of a guild thing?

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Roder operates a site called rulesofbaseball.com where he sells the manual for like $40. I’ve been meaning to purchase an updated version for a few years now, which maybe I’ll do as a result of this conversation.

I found my copy. I’ll write more in a separate comment.

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

“…the pitcher needs to throw to the base, not the fielder when he’s not holding the runner…”

I get that you are merely stating your understanding of the requirement. But if that is indeed the de facto rule, can you offer any rationale for it?

On the face of it, it seems quite odd to say that you can’t throw the ball to a fielder who is standing close to a runner, for the purpose of retiring that runner, simply because they’re not “close” to a base.

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

This honestly doesn’t clarify all that much, and like I said before, this is an outdated copy of the manual. I know they’re constantly updating with better interpretations because even mine has some handwritten updates based on what we were told in rules classes. “It is a balk if the pitcher steps to first base and throws to the first baseman who, because of his distance from the base, is unable to try a tag against the runner at first.” “However, it is not a balk if a pitcher steps to first base and throws over the base when the… Read more »

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

Come to think of it, it’s also just to prevent pitchers from throwing to first when the runner’s not being held, particularly if the first baseman is playing behind the runner.

Jim Bouldin

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

“It is a balk if the pitcher steps to first base and throws to the first baseman who, because of his distance from the base, is unable to try a tag against the runner at first.”

A situation which clearly does not apply here, since he not only was able to, he actually did tag him.

12 years ago

Reply to Jim Bouldin

Jim – I had the same reaction. Plus what is this supposed to mean: “is unable to try a tag against the runner at first”. Why include the clause “to try” in the phrase? Theoretically the third baseman could try to tag a runner on 1st. He wouldn’t succeed unless he was Stretch Armstrong or Plastic Man but it doesn’t mean he couldn’t try.

RichW

12 years ago

What is the threshold to determine if the throw is close enough to the base? It seems a bit much to mandate that a throw be directly over the base. In the video the 3B side view shows that the throw would have been 2-3ft to the left of 1B if Konerko did not catch it. In order to make the catch Konerko has to move sharply to his left while taking several steps towards 1B. That alone indicates that the throw was not “to” Konerko. I’m a little confused (in post 12) about the logic behind preventing LHP from… Read more »

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

@RichW: if the pitcher steps off, he’s no longer considered a pitcher. He can throw the ball wherever he darn well pleases and the balk rules don’t apply. What I was trying to say, and I was only guessing, is one thing the rule is trying to prevent is the lefty pitcher using the “balk move,” where he kicks his right leg then throws to first, when the runner isn’t even being held on. But, I suggested after that that I think the rule is trying to prevent pitchers from throwing over to first when the runner is not being… Read more »

RichW

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

@Dan McCloskey McCoskey: Yeah I was nitpicking on “steal attempt”. Sorry.

If the rule is “must throw directly at or over 1B”, then the umpire got it right. I just wish the rule was clearly written.

The pitcher can still throw to 1B (the base) if the runner is not being held but the risk of a balk or an error makes it a questionable strategy.

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

To reiterate, guys, I’m citing an unofficial and somewhat outdated rules interpretation manual, because the official rule book is pretty vague on a lot of rules. There could be a mucher clearer explanation in the most updated version of the manual. I don’t know. I was just trying to offer a little more insight, but I may have made this discussion even muddier.

Mark in Sydney

12 years ago

Without knowing what Ed Hickox was saying, it is a bit hard to work it out. Maybe he thought Quintana had crossed over and had to go home? Hard to tell from the video angle, but it wouldn’t be the first time that a pitcher had screwed up that play. If this was the case, it would be a pretty fine call. Given all the argument from Ventura was about 1B, I also suspect that it was about the throw-over…

RichW

12 years ago

I don’t know if this site has any credibility but it seems to have more than a few rules hounds.

http://www.closecallsports.com/

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to RichW

Thanks for that link, RichW.

The writer there considered the call correct because “Konerko had not occupied the first base position when the pickoff throw was made.”

I had assumed that the rulebook phrase “unoccupied base” meant that there was no runner entitled to the base. But this would cast a very different light on that phrase.

Jay

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

See, this is where I even read it differently because the full sentence is, “Replays indicate first baseman Paul Konerko had not occupied the first base position when the pickoff throw was made, such that Quintana failed to throw directly to first base from the rubber, the call was correct.” Ergo, the violative conduct appears to be Quintana failing to throw directly to first base from the rubber, as opposed to who occupied what. BTW, several umps over on CloseCall agreed that “unoccupied base” does indeed refer to the runner, which gives credence (in my opinion) to the interpretation of… Read more »

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Jay is right. The occupation of the base has to do with the runner, not the fielder. The rule referenced in the manual is 8.05b not 8.05d.

Phil Gaskill

12 years ago

It’s funny that the rule book is “vague,” “confusing,” whatever words are being used here; the reason I think that’s funny is because the *previous* rule book was not only vague and confusing, but also very illogically “organized,” to use *that* word very loosely. In other words, what I’m saying is that the rule book is not only vague and confusing, but it’s the fact that it’s *STILL* vague and confusing. I used to be very familiar with the old rule book (we’re talking 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s here; I had the whole thing practically memorized in junior high school… Read more »

Jim Bouldin

12 years ago

Reply to Phil Gaskill

Wow, I wouldn’t want to see the old one then, because the more I look at the current one, the less impressed I am. The thing is confusing to contradictory in several places just from reading a small part of it.

Phil Gaskill

12 years ago

There was an incident in about 1979 or so that caused this rule to be clarified, at least in an official ML memo if not in the rule book itself. I forget all the details, but I think it was on an “accidental” incident when a pitcher went to throw over to first, only to discover to his horror that the first baseman was playing well off the bag, not holding the runner. (The pitcher had obviously thought or assumed that the first baseman *was* holding the runner.) So, to avoid a real bad throw, the pitcher readjusted his motion… Read more »

mosc

12 years ago

You guys, you’re missing why the rule exists. Lets say you have a runner on second and the shortstop comes in behind him, between the runner and second base. The pitcher then spins around and throws to the shortstop (NOT at second base) and has caught the runner. This is unfair to the baserunner. As a result, the rule states that the pitcher must throw to an occupied base. This does not mean simply that there is a runner on the base. It means also that he throws to said base, quite literally. He MUST throw to a base. Not… Read more »

topper009

12 years ago

Reply to mosc

Exactly, without this rule the defense could play man-to-man defense, just stand next to the runner and the pitcher can throw it right at you(which they can still do if the pitcher just simply steps off the mound) mid windup, essentially eliminating the leadoff

mosc

12 years ago

Reply to topper009

Which is why we’re taught at such a young age to get the hell back to base whenever the pitcher steps off the rubber. You’re not protected by the rule anymore and the pitcher doesn’t have to throw to the base anymore. Particularly when you’re on second, you are a sitting duck.

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Reply to mosc

The play you describe here mosc is not a balk. The rule only applies on pickoff throws to first base.

Jim Bouldin

12 years ago

Reply to mosc

I think John’s point is that the rule is faaaaaaaaaaaar from clear in the way it’s worded. In you example, there’s nothing from preventing the runner from breaking back to the bag, and if the pitcher throws it to the fielder off the bag, he’s not going to get him in most cases. Plus you would run into the real potential for runner interference if somebody tried to step between the runner and the bag, not to mention the possibility of hitting the runner with the ball, or the complete train wreck where both things happen at the same time.… Read more »

RichW

12 years ago

Reply to mosc

@mosc; That just isn’t so. The only base a pitcher must throw to or over is 1B. A pitcher can twirl and fake to 2B or 3B or he can throw to the second baseman third baseman or SS even if they are not at the bag as long as it is an attempt to retire a runner. Now that being said the pitcher is subject to rule 8.05h unnecessarily delaying the game after he is warned under rule 8.02c for throwing to fielders other than the catcher when it is deemed by the umpire to not be a legitimate… Read more »

Jim Bouldin

12 years ago

Another interesting one from yesterday:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=24993687&c_id=mlb

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Reply to Jim Bouldin

The fielder has 100% of the right of way as long he is attempting to field a batted ball. If Casilla hadn’t turned his back, he could have shifted to the shortstop side of the bag as Peralta came across the bag and got out of his way. The rule book is pretty unforgiving here, but that’s the rule.

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Jim Bouldin

Good find, Jim. That one seems to be a clear umpire blunder. “7.08 Any runner is out when — … (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball; or hinders a fielder attempting to make a play on a batted ball; Rule 7.08(b) Comment: A runner who is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball is out whether it was intentional or not. If, however, the runner has contact with a legally occupied base when he hinders the fielder, he shall not be called out unless, in the umpires judgment,… Read more »

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Reply to John Autin

I stand corrected. Wasn’t aware of the exception involving the runner standing on the base. Gardenhire could have protested if the explanation he was given wasn’t that the umpire ruled it intentional. If he simply said the runner has to get out of the fielder’s way, then it could be argued he’s misinterpreting the rule. From the replay, it seems O’Nora (the umpire) is explaining that Casilla needed to pivot around the base to avoid Peralta. If, in saying that, he’s calling it intentional, then I suppose he should have called the runner and the batter out. Which, obviously, makes… Read more »

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

I looked it up because my initial thought was the same as yours. In general, the rules put great demands on the runner avoiding a fielder.

Editor

Dan McCloskey

12 years ago

Speaking of interesting plays, as I was looking for more information on the play that inspired this post, I found this, from 2008:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=3287297

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Reply to Dan McCloskey

I’m amazed that there is video of Richie Sexson’s 30-second Yankee tenure.

Author

John Autin

12 years ago

Mosc @28: “He MUST throw to a base. Not to between a base.” What is your source for that claim? I’ve read the balk rule a dozen times now looking for anything that says a pitcher can’t throw to a fielder who is off a base. Unless I have a massive brain tumor, there is no such language. Let’s look at the full text of the balk rule and see if we can find a requirement that he throw to a base, not to between a base: (Please note that I am now addressing Mosc’s general claim, NOT the original… Read more »

Mike Tycksen

8 years ago

Reply to John Autin

Rule 6.02(a)(3) Comment (Rule 8.05(c) Comment): Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly towards a base before throwing to that base.
A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base and is required to throw (except to second base) because he steps. ….. It is legal for a pitcher to feint a throw to second base.

So a feint to any other base is illegal.

e pluribus munu

8 years ago

Reply to Mike Tycksen

It’s rare we have revival of interest in a thread 3+ years old. I think the issue is that the rule doesn’t specify that the pitcher must throw to the base, it only specifies that the he step directly towards first or third base if he does throw to the base. If the issue is whether he commits a balk by throwing to a fielder who is standing off the base, I don’t see that covered by the rule. If the rule makers wanted to prevent a throw like Quintana’s, they would have specified that the pitcher is required, when… Read more »

Mike Tycksen

8 years ago

Reply to e pluribus munu

Just to clarify, most officials know that the rules are written a specific way and changes subject to someone finding a way to cheat or gain an advantage and there are the interpretation of the rules which lead to the debate. So I assume you are looking for specific language that says he must throw to the base and it doesn’t per that one rule but through various rules and interpretations. As for the 3 year length, I came across this thread because an official in our league thought the same thing and that is wrong. The MLB interpretation book… Read more »

Mike Tycksen

8 years ago

I think you guys have missed the relevant part of the equation and that is what is making a play. There is the vicinity part of making a play and you must throw to the base. Since F3 was not is position to make a play (he was in a fielding position and not in the proximity of the base) and not in position to make a play and the throw was not to the bag. The pitcher was engaged with the rubber, he has to throw the ball to 1st base. This is your elements of the balk. Pitcher… Read more »

oneblankspace

8 years ago

Reply to Mike Tycksen

So if a runner takes a 45-foot lead off of first, and the second baseman sneaks up behind him, the pitcher could not throw to the second baseman to retire the runner because the 2b is not at a base?

Mike tycksen

8 years ago

You are correct, if the pitcher is in contact with the pitching plate. Now if he disengaged, he is a fielder and can throw to the 2nd baseman.