Adding and subtracting balks?
he End Note to Rule 8.05 goes on to say,
"However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:"
There those rule makers go again, directly expecting umpires to CONSIDER what is really happening rather than just arbitrarily deciding based on the presence of some clearly defined illegal act. So to what "specifics" do they refer? Well, there follow two (2) antithetical case play examples about which the rule makers say there can be no use of the principle of "doubt" they have provided:
"(a) Straddling the pitcher's rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk."
Now wait just a doggone minute! Isn't that action already covered as one of the 14 distinct offenses under the balk rule? Yes, it is - see OBR 8.05(i). So why raise it again here UNLESS it is to say this is one of those 14 distinct offenses about which an umpire can never have a "doubt" and so should never be ignored.
Continued...
Please sign in to read the rest of this article:
