@@davidlocke3477 It's a good question. I'd have to imagine it has happened once or twice before over the last 120ish years, but I don't know and couldn't find an answer online.
As Lin said, Tumpane and Hudson have the best view on this balk. Blakney is straightlined. He thought the pitcher disengaged, but Hudson and Tumpane saw he didn't. Yes, the WHOLE crew should've come together. The optics were pretty bad with that.
Catcher can ask for time, but it doesn't have to be granted by the umpire (it's not up to the player, unlike in other sports). But yes you're right they should have confirmed that the balk happened before the umpire called time (though assuming he's loud about it the other umpires could judge that themselves).
Hey Lindsay, it seems like we've seen a lot more balks called this year. IIRC, MLB told the umps specifically to look for start-stop balks at the beginning of the season. As I understand it, the balk rule is meant to discourage a pitcher from deceiving a runner by moving like he's going to make a pitch but then not actually throwing a pitch. However, I feel like that intention has taken a back seat to the letter of the law, and many 2023 balks have been over slight motions that aren't at all likely to deceive a base runner. How could MLB change the rule and/or its enforcement so that the spirit of the rule is restored? Perhaps they could make it like the Scherzer and Contreras rules so that each player gets one warning per game and only penalize subsequent infractions? Or is the solution just to educate pitchers and coaches better on what motions are and are not allowed?
@@bdog-it4701but it's hard to tell if anything was said to Tumpane at the time Alvarez made that motion. To me it looks like he was trying to signal the pitcher about the PitchCom issue, not alert the ump for time. I could be wrong since there is no audio, and if that was the case then maybe one could argue that Tumpane should have called for time sooner, before the balk. But that's a stretch.
@@bdog-it4701 Also, Walker had done that prior to getting set. He pointed to his hat, Alavarez signaled, then HP ump and Walker signaled at the same time (after the flinch). No doubt about the balk/flinch happening, but it did come after a clear pitch-com issue. Walker didn't have a pitch-com at all, the bullpen was out of them. At worst it should be assessed a ball. Oh well.
Yeah it is. We’ve had a bad few years, it’s like we’re back in the 2004-2009 era of the Royals. 100+ loss seasons, bad trades, and now ownership only talks about building a new stadium, as if that fixes our poor performance on the field. Hard times for us Royals fans, so we’ll take whatever win we can get.
Steve Cohen should do the humane thing and relieve manager Buck Showalter of his duties. Yesterday’s twin bill 21-3 and 6-0 massacres at the hands of the Braves is sickening. If Buck has already been told he’s not returning in 2024, don’t allow him to complete the 2023 season like former manager Art Howe. Buck, don’t humiliate yourself trying to do your best to ensure you finish above the Nationals. Your mental and physical health is paramount. Do what ex-head coach of the NY Giants Dan Reeves did by quitting after he was told to complete the regular season.
What a weird time/thing to celebrate. Though, I suppose KC will use any excuse they can get to have a little fun. I imagine it may have been a bit ironic.
The rules already accomodate this. The pitcher could have just stepped off and walked towards home plate to explain the issue; he would not have been charged a disengagement. The problem is that he flinched his back leg before communicating anything. If a runner had gone off that flinch, and not caring about the pitch call he picked them off as a result, the Royals would have gone ballistic at the non-call.
This is why I don't like limiting disengagements. The pitcher has to figure out on the fly whether it's worth burning a disengagement or otherwise deal with the issue from the rubber. And in high pressure situations the body often starts moving before the brain has finished deciding what to do.
@@sfan2767 the rules of a balk require “intent to deceive the runner” Technology unexpectedly not working and literally encountering it for the first time in your life while the pitch clock is running out with bases loaded you might not think clearly and there’s zero *intent* to deceive. It would be as simple as mlb giving pitchers a motion to do (“raise both hands straight up” etc) to indicate a malfunction and it would be solved. But Manfred doesn’t care
@@MyBiPolarBearMax Not quite. While Rule 6.02(a) Comment does say that the purpose behind the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher deceiving the runner, other balk rules specifically include situations where that can happen on accident (eg Rule 6.02(a)(11)). Not coming set in a continuous motion or failing to properly step-off should be called as a balk. I agree with @babababad that limiting disengagements to add a lot of stress to deciding whether or not you can disengage now, but to enforce pitch clock rules such a limitation is necessary. (Yay, pitchclock! /s). The rules get very complex with everything that now needs to be considered, but I could see a world when everything is more routine the pitcher will simply properly disengage, say it's due to pitchcom issues and not get charged for the disengagement. But until then, more whacky situations.
im really getting sick of certain dumbass rules deciding games balks are meant to protect the runner from the pitcher faking them out, or messing with the batter's timing and concentration.... a lot of these called balks ive seen in these review videos are a pressure player twitching or moving his leg for OBVIOUSLY not those reasons.... so dumb the other one that infuriates me but i understand kinda, is when someone hits a homerun, but a player can be called out for missing a bag on the victory lap.... its technically 100% retarded to miss a bag... its also INSANE to get out AFTER a homerun has been hit cause reasons
A run is scored by an offensive player who touches all bases in legal order. A run is not scored by jacking the ball over the fence. Hitting a dinger only gives the offense the ability to advance all the way to home without liability to be put out.
@@bricehultgren6073 judges already use their disgression to decide intent on the first base turn no turn thing, as well as leaning in to a bean ball, as well as bean balls in general... none of which EVER turns out well for fans.... so i guess i agree with you.
As far as watching the hand signal for a timeout, that is not a very good definition of when the timeout was granted ! This is why they needed the meeting!
Not even close… really should have no argument as it was so in-your-face… As an umpire.. Not the way we like to see a game end.. but them are the rules and we don’t make them.
Oh crap, I hate when a crew does that. Either PU was wrong or his partners were wrong. Please fellas just take a minute to confer. Especially in a critical time like that. UGH!
The catcher saw the balk and called time in an attempt to distract everyone and before the 1st or 2nd base umpires signaled anything, but he was too late, anyway. Nice try, though.
Based on homeplate umpires gesture timing I think the other umps knew he saw a disengagement and was not honoring a timeout (the catcher wouldn't put his hands up later if it had already been granted). They were probably embarrassed they didn't call it immediately and wanted to get the call right ASAP and avoid a big huddle (which introduces the appearance of doubt).
it was a balk then the catcher tried distracting with the time.. the decisive call from the chief was perfect he knew exactly what NY was trying to do there
Yep. From the plate umpire’s vantage point, it looked like a “disengagement” but it wasn’t. At that point, the wing umpires saw a “stat and stop” balk. Great call by the wing guys!!!
U3 & U1 might should have talked to PU. But was clearly unnecessary. PU called a disengagement before granting time. PU must have thought step back was off the rubber. Clearly the step was not off the rubber-so the called disengagement was actually a balk before time was even asked for.
It does look a little bad that the other 2 didn't at least touch base even briefly with Blakney, even if it was to say "we both have an obvious balk, before anything else happened" (which is the case).....but, in the end, they both saw it and called it, and got it right
Haven’t we all worked we someone before that just wanted to come in and overrule without even pretending to have a discussion about it? Not a great look at all.
I’ve never understood why Lindsay has to be so dismissive of players and the things they do. For some reason she feels the need to make a snide comment about the Royals celebrating a win by joking that they must have won the World Series or something. She often comes across as someone that has real disdain for players and managers. I enjoy the rules discussions but I never enjoy the shots she takes at players and managers. Comes across as so dismissive and superior. Just my opinion.
Thank you for pointing out the corner umps making the call without talking to the home ump first when they’re clearly trying to conference. People were lucky to get to see him come ump a game today (The egos on some of these MLB guys is so out of control and it overrides all the good work the rest of them do).
The whole problem was the pitch com and the ability to deal with it not working. It was a cluster fuck and resulted in the balk. What's the protocol there? Does it count as a disengage ment if the pitcher steps off correctly and addresses the issue? Or does the catcher have to do it? And on top of that the clock is winding. It's a whole lot of wtf is going on. Yeah pitcher can't flinch. But there has got to be better ways of handling these situations. It's a terrible look for the game to have an equipment technology malfunction result in a BS walkoff.
Pretty clearly written, if the pitcher disengages and then declares the pitchcomm problem, it’s a non event and just counts as a disengagement. He flinched and failed to disengage properly. Clear Balkan long as time isn’t called before hand, which it wasn’t.
Want to stop all this confusion ? Play the game the way it was meant to be played- ie get rid of the pitch comm, replay, pitcher and batter clocks, umpire strike-ball calculations and some of the hideous uniforms teams wear Gone are the days when the game was simple and pure- pitch, hit, run, throw Adding more stuff onto something already simple- breeds confusion, arguments etc
@@JobiWan144 Just being sarcastic. Of course, the umpires could eject anyone before they leave the field. But I was talking about the manager not going ballistic and getting ejected. Par for the course.
@@robertbrown7470 Sorry, sarcasm often gets lost in text-only communication. Yes, Showalter is the kind of manager you'd expect to get himself ejected over a play/call like this one. Perhaps he just wasn't feeling like it that day, or maybe the umpires were able to explain clearly that the balk occurred before anyone called "time."
It's really hard to appease both those looking for utmost rulebook accuracy, while still preserving all the "unwritten rule" entertainment of the game, plus also making exceptions for context.
With 162 games per team per season, consistency is incredibly important for a game that is as steeped in statistics and tradition as baseball. They've made quite a lot of changes recently, and I think they want to avoid changing too much at once, and risk 'breaking' something without knowing the precise cause.
It was a balk. Not sure why it wasn’t called immediately. Royals first balk-off in franchise history. There was plenty of other entertainment throughout the 9th and 10th innings!!!
Just when you thought baseball couldn't get any creepier with its Poindexter technology and egg-timer rules, then the men in blue play Get the Mets. On the bright side, it was a heartfelt home-town call for the long-suffering Royals fans. MLB is dead.
Um, what? John Tumpane is one of the better umpires in MLB and is one of the most mild-mannered people you'll ever meet, on or off the field. Not to mention he saved a woman's life a few years back.....AND his call in this game benefitted the Royals.
@@teebob21I Tumpane the ump that helped a woman not jumping off a bridge in Pittsburg??! If he is then I have zero to no idea why the calling him some of all of that above. Guess some folks just gonna raise hell or dislike people for the silliest of reasons. Or no reasons at all
I have no clue why the umpires would need to get together unless there was timed called. That was the only question I could possibly see that would require an umpire huddle.
The umpires needed to get together because not every umpire had the same call. PU Blakney ruled it a legal disengagement (that's what the waist high single-finger mechanic was), but U1 Hudson and U3 Tumpane could clearly see that the pitcher did not disengage his plate and had balked.
For those of you that demand accurate umpiring with balls & strikes, fairs & fouls, safes & outs, must also accept balk calls. The pitchers are pros. If they haven't learned the balk rules by now, that's on them. Not the umpires.
Who, exactly, was deceived by that move? Nobody. Yet lefties with "a good move to first" step somewhere towards the warmup circle or HP end of the dugout.. 5.07(d) "At any time during the pitcher’s preliminary movements and until his natural pitching motion commits him to the pitch, he may throw to any base provided he steps directly toward such base before making the throw." Can someone explain why the rulebook does not apply to lefthanded pitchers throwing to first?
It does. As long as they are stepping toward first base more than they are toward home, it's the same thing as a RHP throwing to third base. They can use the exact same move.
@@teebob21 Other then the fact that no lefty " steps directly toward such base" well, gee, I don't know why anyone would think that. For those saying "well righties towards 3rd", well, how many more pickoff moves go towards 1st then 3rd
@@brianmullaney6237 The approved interpretation of the rule is that anything less than a 45-degree angle is a step to said base. This is covered in the casebook and umpire's manual, which I'm sure you have read. Imagine an overhead view of the pitcher's mound. If there are only 4 directions to step, an imaginary X can be drawn with the lines of this X, if extended, would be perpendicular to the midpoints of the baselines. A LH pitcher who steps "toward" 1B but at a greater than 45 degree angle has stepped more directly towards home than first, and has violated the rule. It's basic, simple geometry.
Do you think the umpires “rig” the game for the home team in bottom of the ninth or extra innings, because they just want to go to their home/hotel? The fans would not know why they are looking for an excuse to end the game.
Lindsay is still trying to rationalize improperly using 6.02(a)1 for a "start stop" set balk. If you use 6.02(a)(1) every pitcher who comes set legally and stops has violated 6.02(a)(1). But they haven't because they have not started to "make any motion naturally associated with THEIR DELIVERY OF THE PITCH. Caps being my rewording of what the rule intends. The violation is of 5.07(a)(2) which does not have a balk penalty. Some violations of 5.07(a)(2) are called "do not do that"s but the the start stop is balked according to Jim Evans as a common convention in OBR/MLB. I think you could also make a case for a balk as a violation one of the illegal feint clauses in 6.02(a).
