Can Mike clarify a couple

Can Mike clarify a couple of things? 1) Was he digging at me with his “pet peeve”? If so, I would like an apology, since it was clear that I said I DID NOT understand the rule, not that I DID understand it. I was looking for answers beyond what I could find in the rulebook (and I did read the entire balk rule, for the record, but not the entire rulebook, admittedly). If he wasn’t digging at my “amateurism”, then forget this part of the post, and thanks for adding his two cents. 2) re: his two cents: What do “making any motion naturally associated with his pitch and fails to make a delivery” and “swinging a free foot past the back edge of the pitcher’s rubber” have to do with each other? I am looking for an historical reason behind what I will call the “Behind the Rubber Exception” (BRE for short). My post should have been more clear, a structural/historical series of questions: Why is there a BRE at all? When was it put in the rulebook? At what point was it determined that breaking that invisible plane is “naturally associated” with the pitching motion? What about a slide step? Is that not natural? Most pitchers don’t break the plane during the slide step, yet it would, by extension, fall under the auspices of “not naturally associated”. It seems to me that the balk rule is actually an illogical mess, however clearly articulated that mess might be. I am glad that Mike knows that there IS a BRE, but he didn’t provide an explanation for WHY it exists. Can he help me on this one, or am I doomed to being annoyed?

0 comments… add one

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.