Guy Fieri imposter interviewed during Royals telecast

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

What infuriated me was him mocking the lack of a BALK call when it was clearly a BALK.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

What infuriated me was him mocking the lack of a BALK call when it was clearly a BALK.

I didn't mock the call.

I laughed at pete for complaining about it. I didn't even see the play b/c of the Guy bullshit. When pete asked, I said I'd trust the ump over fans, most of which don't understand what a balk is.

Most of the time in these situations, the umps are right. Might not be the case here, but I wasn't taking pete's word for it.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I didn't mock the call.

I laughed at pete for complaining about it. I didn't even see the play b/c of the Guy bullshit. When pete asked, I said I'd trust the ump over fans, most of which don't understand what a balk is.

Most of the time in these situations, the umps are right. Might not be the case here, but I wasn't taking pete's word for it.

sure looked like a balk to me, frank white agreed

[tomahawk kid]

Originally Posted by JASONSAUTO

sure looked like a balk to me, frank white agreed

yeah - that wasn't even close to a 45 degree angle.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I didn't mock the call.

I laughed at pete for complaining about it. I didn't even see the play b/c of the Guy bullshit. When pete asked, I said I'd trust the ump over fans, most of which don't understand what a balk is.

Most of the time in these situations, the umps are right. Might not be the case here, but I wasn't taking pete's word for it.

That's fair, considering it is pete.

[DeezNutz]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

That's fair, considering it is pete.

Exactly, and I like pete. But flipping him shit is obligatory.

[wild1]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

I didn't mock the call.

I laughed at pete for complaining about it. I didn't even see the play b/c of the Guy bullshit. When pete asked, I said I'd trust the ump over fans, most of which don't understand what a balk is.

Most of the time in these situations, the umps are right. Might not be the case here, but I wasn't taking pete's word for it.

When a balk happens, the fan's usually don't even notice. Given the poster's history i will just assume he stepped off the rubber or something.

[tomahawk kid]

Originally Posted by wild1

When a balk happens, the fan's usually don't even notice. Given the poster's history i will just assume he stepped off the rubber or something.

Instead of stepping towards the base, he basically stepped towards the base line - between home and the bag.

My understanding (and I'm not a balk rule expert), is that constitutes a balk.

You either have to step towards the bag for a pick off move or towards the plate to make a pitch.

There's no in between......

[wild1]

Originally Posted by tomahawk kid

Instead of stepping towards the base, he basically stepped towards the base line - between home and the bag.

My understanding (and I'm not a balk rule expert), is that constitutes a balk.

Why would that be a balk? If he's closer to the base than he was before the throw he's going 'toward' it. Maybe it's supposed to be 'directly toward', but I can't remember ever seeing it called that way if so. Either way the umpire didn't feel in his judgment there was intent to deceive the runner which is the spirit of it anyway.

[tomahawk kid]

Originally Posted by wild1

Why would that be a balk? If he's closer to the base than he was before the throw he's going 'toward' it. Maybe it's supposed to be 'directly toward', but I can't remember ever seeing it called that way if so. Either way the umpire didn't feel in his judgment there was intent to deceive the runner which is the spirit of it anyway.

Yep - I think by rule it's supposed to be directly towards.

Again, I don't claim to be an expert......

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by wild1

Why would that be a balk? If he's closer to the base than he was before the throw he's going 'toward' it. Maybe it's supposed to be 'directly toward', but I can't remember ever seeing it called that way if so. Either way the umpire didn't feel in his judgment there was intent to deceive the runner which is the spirit of it anyway.

He didn't make a clear move towards the base. He would start too then his leg would move towards the plate. Frank White says it's a balk so that is good enough for me. And it was clear intent to deceive the runner. I had a most excellent view of him and it was clearly a balk. His leg would swing from first twards the plate as opposed to moving towards the base.

(c) 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
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info.../pitcher_8.jsp

He did not step directly towards the base. His foot was moving towards the plate when he made the throws to 1st.

[Sully]

Originally Posted by petegz28

He didn't make a clear move towards the base. He would start too then his leg would move towards the plate. Frank White says it's a balk so that is good enough for me. And it was clear intent to deceive the runner. I had a most excellent view of him and it was clearly a balk. His leg would swing from first twards the plate as opposed to moving towards the base.



He did not step directly towards the base. His foot was moving towards the plate when he made the throws to 1st.

Does the fact that his hips (and basically entire torso) began moving toward the plate have any place in this conversation?

- signed, one of those morons who doesn't fully know how to recognize a balk.