Fake to 3rd then throw to first now illegal

[The Wedge]

I think you're overstating this by a lot. You're speculating that allowing a pitcher to be a little more deceptive when delivering the ball will lead to the downfall of the sport, which I think it exaggerating to to the point of absurdity. Literally, most of the balk rule has not been called in my lifetime, and a lot of it has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. When's the last time you saw someone punished for not facing the pitcher when pitching?

The reason the balk rule exists in its current form is that all the rules with regards to pitching were in constant flux in the 1870-93 timeframe. In roughly 25 years they went from an underhanded delivery from 45' with a stiff wrist, almost like Dan Quisenberry as cricket bowler, to the modern incarnation with no restrictions on delivery as long as you're on the rubber on a mound. And a million other little things like the pitcher's box, and short run-ups, and inventing the concept of "balls" to keep pitchers from never throwing a hittable pitch. They were literally making stuff up as they went along, and stopped when it mostly worked. The balk rule was this crazy mess of stuff that was designed to counteract strategies in this transitional period, many of them now meaningless. For example, I'm convinced the "must face batter" part of the balk rule had something to do with the pitcher delivering from a ground-level box where he wasn't fixed to a rubber and could run/hop several steps. Which, of course, hasn't applied to modern baseball in 120 years. The idea that cleaning up some of this would lead to chaos in baseball is frankly ludicrous.

I think the balk rule can be essentially eliminated, and replaced with a much simpler version that just says once you've started your motion towards the plate you can't stop and throw to another base. But no more balks for accidentally dropping the ball. No more balks for twitching while on the mound. No more balks for failing to stop at the set position for however long the ump has decided is enough.

Let's stop deciding the occasional modern baseball game on mis-application of Victorian brainstorming.

As an olde tymey player, usually 1864-86 rulesets, I'll tell you what is maybe the most "common" move to keep a runner close to first or from breaking on first move by us modern ballists playing the old game: faking to first then almost immediately coming home. The pitcher does need to at least come to some sort of "set" and therefore can't make it one continuous movement, but you'd be surprised at how quickly that still can be done. I don't think the come set thing was called way back then, so this would be a perfect example of someone who wasn't facing the batter, especially a right hander. Since that action is completely outlawed now, it's a good example for something that was created for back then that subsequent game changes made moot.

[Number5]

I think you're overstating this by a lot. You're speculating that allowing a pitcher to be a little more deceptive when delivering the ball will lead to the downfall of the sport, which I think it exaggerating to to the point of absurdity. Literally, most of the balk rule has not been called in my lifetime, and a lot of it has nothing to do with deceiving anyone. When's the last time you saw someone punished for not facing the pitcher when pitching?

The reason the balk rule exists in its current form is that all the rules with regards to pitching were in constant flux in the 1870-93 timeframe. In roughly 25 years they went from an underhanded delivery from 45' with a stiff wrist, almost like Dan Quisenberry as cricket bowler, to the modern incarnation with no restrictions on delivery as long as you're on the rubber on a mound. And a million other little things like the pitcher's box, and short run-ups, and inventing the concept of "balls" to keep pitchers from never throwing a hittable pitch. They were literally making stuff up as they went along, and stopped when it mostly worked. The balk rule was this crazy mess of stuff that was designed to counteract strategies in this transitional period, many of them now meaningless. For example, I'm convinced the "must face batter" part of the balk rule had something to do with the pitcher delivering from a ground-level box where he wasn't fixed to a rubber and could run/hop several steps. Which, of course, hasn't applied to modern baseball in 120 years. The idea that cleaning up some of this would lead to chaos in baseball is frankly ludicrous.

I think the balk rule can be essentially eliminated, and replaced with a much simpler version that just says once you've started your motion towards the plate you can't stop and throw to another base. But no more balks for accidentally dropping the ball. No more balks for twitching while on the mound. No more balks for failing to stop at the set position for however long the ump has decided is enough.

Let's stop deciding the occasional modern baseball game on mis-application of Victorian brainstorming.

The problem with that is it would essentially eliminate stolen bases. The minute the guy breaks for second everyone yells, the pitcher stops, and there's a rundown. Steals become a trick play with multiple runners on, kind of like a delayed steal of home is today. You could probably lead the league with six stolen bases on the year.

If anything I think there should be rules changes that emphasize speed and athleticism. Completely eliminating the balk rule would lead to softball-like station-to-station baseball.

No, it is you that is overstating your point by a lot.

COC was talking about eliminating balk rules altogether, not making minor changes. That would, indeed be injurious to the game and reduce its attractiveness as a spectator sport. Of that I have no doubt. Yes, IMO, such a farcical game would cease to exist as a professional sport. Yes, kids could still play ball, as they do now, but as a spectator sport? No way. The game would take entirely too long and be too hard to follow if reduced to a ridiculous cat-and-mouse game with no rules governing pitchers' actions. The biggest complaint now about baseball is that it takes too long. No exaggeration there at all.

You keep wanting to bring up minor sections of the balk rule, as if they are somehow causing problems. They are not. The very reason that you don't regularly see these infractions is the fact that the rules are in place. Having the rules there prevents these actions from taking place, and the game is in no way harmed or disrupted by having the rules there. Why on earth does it bother you to have a rule in place that you have never seen anyone punished for? That only means that the rule is working. I'm sure that you've never seen a player punished for digging a trench with his cleats in front of the ball to make a bunted ball roll foul. That doesn't mean they should eliminate the rule. The validity of a rule is not measured by how often you see someone punished for it. Nor should it only be there if you, personally, can figure out the intent of the rule and what someone might do if it wasn't there. Yes, of course the pitcher should face the batter. That has zero to do with the 1860's cricket-style run-and-pitch. That is about being set for play. He can't face second base and either fire it between his legs or whirl and fire when the batter and runners aren't prepared. I really think that you would feel better if you didn't worry about rules that you never see enforced. They are working just fine and are harming neither the game, nor you.

[The Wedge]

You're cherry picking his argument for your own benefit.

How about the other things he's illustrated that have no place in the modern game? Dropping the ball? He's seen that, I know he has, because I've seen it. I remember when it happened.

His overall point is completely valid, but you want to cherry pick one example he made to discredit it. The balk rule, as currently written, is overly long. It is a result of adding to the rule over and over without consolidating it down to the basic problem. His notion to eliminate the current rule and replace it with stronger simpler language that states that once you start towards the plate you must continue to the plate and not to another base makes tremendous amount of sense. Over the last 5 years I've seen entirely too many pitchers get called for a balk when "deceiving the runner" was the last thing in their mind when it happened, and for a DECADE I've watched Andy Pettite do NOTHING BUT deceive the runner with his pickoff move.

[Number5]

You're cherry picking his argument for your own benefit.

How about the other things he's illustrated that have no place in the modern game? Dropping the ball? He's seen that, I know he has, because I've seen it. I remember when it happened.

His overall point is completely valid, but you want to cherry pick one example he made to discredit it. The balk rule, as currently written, is overly long. It is a result of adding to the rule over and over without consolidating it down to the basic problem. His notion to eliminate the current rule and replace it with stronger simpler language that states that once you start towards the plate you must continue to the plate and not to another base makes tremendous amount of sense. Over the last 5 years I've seen entirely too many pitchers get called for a balk when "deceiving the runner" was the last thing in their mind when it happened, and for a DECADE I've watched Andy Pettite do NOTHING BUT deceive the runner with his pickoff move.

I'm not cherry-picking anything. Drungo is the one bringing up little-known or seldom-called rules, not me. I'm simply directly responding to his points. All balk rules, and many other rules for that matter, were put in place to cover some action that some players or teams were using that were deemed not in the best interest of fair play.

He brought up the dropped ball earlier in the thread, and I addressed that. Yes, we have all seen a balk called when a pitcher accidentally drops the ball while on the pitchers plate. The rule was not put in place to punish guys for accidentally dropping the ball, but rather for guys that would perfect a way to intentionally drop the ball in such a way as to deceive a runner into thinking the ball was either pitched or thrown to a different base, enabling the pitcher to quickly pick it up and catch the runner off-base and off-guard. You can't really have the rule read that only intentional drops are a balk, as an umpire can't be expected to be a mind reader. If intent was part of any balk rule, there would be constant arguments about whether the pitcher meant to do something, or did it by accident. In fact, from what I've seen as an umpire, most balks that are called are accidental. If the rules weren't there, however, we would see these action much, much more often, with intent.

Drungo's point, that you apparently agree with, about the balk rule being to long overlooks the fact that rules need to be specific. Coaches and players always demand to know what they did wrong anytime a balk, or obstruction, or interference, etc. is called. Deservedly so. They deserve to know what the call is. Having generic rules leaving too much to interpretation would cause far, far more arguments and game delays than we see now. Having specific rules eliminates that, for the most part. Now the arguments we see are limited to whether or not the player actually did what the umpire ruled he did or not, not whether or not that action is included in some generic rule. Trust me, a "simple" balk rule would end up with far more complications than the specific rules we have now.

What I don't understand is why it bothers anyone to have "long" balk rules. How does that hurt anyone? Ballplayers and coaches understand the rules. They really do. They aren't nearly as complex as Drungo makes them out to be, and - other than here - there is no outcry to eliminate them.

[The Wedge]

Except for the fact that over my own lifetime I've seen more "technicality" balks than "true" balks. Like I mentioned, pretty much every single time Andy Petitte threw to first he was balking. He somehow got away with an astonishing number of times of his front foot moving forward first, then to first. It was so deceptive to the runner it was also deceptive to the umps. Meanwhile, I saw balks called on pitchers for yes, dropping the ball. But also twitching, or having a muscle spasm. Other nickel-and-dime infractions. It's incredibly annoying to have honest to god deceptions go uncalled and have ticky-tack BS getting pitchers nailed.

And generally, there's an outcry for about 3 days whenever a pitcher gets called for doing something stupid. Then people just shrug and go about their business. The point here is that they changed the rule to something that only makes it worse, not better.

[Number5]

Except for the fact that over my own lifetime I've seen more "technicality" balks than "true" balks. Like I mentioned, pretty much every single time Andy Petitte threw to first he was balking. He somehow got away with an astonishing number of times of his front foot moving forward first, then to first. It was so deceptive to the runner it was also deceptive to the umps. Meanwhile, I saw balks called on pitchers for yes, dropping the ball. But also twitching, or having a muscle spasm. Other nickel-and-dime infractions. It's incredibly annoying to have honest to god deceptions go uncalled and have ticky-tack BS getting pitchers nailed.

And generally, there's an outcry for about 3 days whenever a pitcher gets called for doing something stupid. Then people just shrug and go about their business. The point here is that they changed the rule to something that only makes it worse, not better.

Your point about Petitte (and others) is valid, and I actually brought that up earlier in this thread. That is more of a mechanical problem of the umpires not calling it than a rules problem. I'd like to see the second base umpires call more balks on LHP that step more toward home than first on a pick-off throw. Petitte has gotten away with that throughout his career. The rule is already in place, but it is difficult for the first base umpire to have the angle to clearly see where the pitcher's right foot lands, relative to home and first base. The plate umpire is set up to view the pitch, and it is difficult for him to judge that angle, as well. The second base umpire has the best view, but we rarely see the second base umpire make that call. While any umpire can call a balk, I suspect that umpires hesitate to make a call that may be perceived as "out of their area." That call is actually easier to make in the two-man mechanic generally used in high school and rec ball, because the base umpire is right behind the pitcher, and can easily see the angle and where the foot landed.

As I have already stated, most balks that I see are accidental, rather than intentional. It is simply impractical to make intent a part of a balk rule. Same with interference and obstruction. If the action occurs, the call is made. The umpire cannot realistically be expected to make a ruling of what was in the mind of a player. Eliminating these rules because of the occasional accidental occurrence would undoubtedly have the result of causing many times more intentional occurrences. I think you know that both you and Drungo are stretching the point here. It simply isn't so that umpires are constantly calling balks on pitchers for wiggling their ears or "having a muscle spasm." Balks don't happen that often. They really don't. I know that most games I umpire have zero balks, and I'm not dealing with professionals. When there is a balk in an important spot in a MLB game, yes, some fans will be upset, but that would usually be more from a combination of not knowing/understanding the rule and, more significantly, that their team lost the game. The coaches and players understand the rules and the calls. Any real objection by a coach or player in MLB in that situation is about the umpire not seeing what happened correctly, not the rule.