When the Giants Come to Town, It's Bye-Bye Baby

04.30.2008
4/29/08: Oh! Darling

Rockies 3, Giants 2: The only thing more subjective than the balk rule is your favorite kind of cheese. So many possibilities, so many nuances, so many interpretations.

In case you missed it, the Giants lost last night when home plate ump Gary Darling called a balk on Tim Lincecum and the go-ahead run scored from third. One thing is indisputable: Lincecum started his motion toward home and stopped. This, generally, is a balk. Once you start you cannot stop unless you throw to a different base without too much deception. Well. except if you fake to third and fake to first. Or turn and fake to second. Mmm. Stilton. Jarlsberg. Dill havarti or plain havarti?

In a vacuum, what Lincecum did was most certainly a balk. But he was influenced, and thus the controversy. Just as Lincecum rocked back to start his wind-up, Bengie Molina tried to call time out. Not before he started. Right as he started. In response to Molina, Darling lifted his hands and called "time" -- you can hear it on the video replay -- then immediately said "That's a balk!" and waved the runner home.

Post-game, Darling told the press that Lincecum had stopped his motion, or flinched, and Bengie tried to cover it by calling time. Not true. It was obviously Molina's "time out" gesture and the "time" call by the umpire that made Lincecum stop.

Here's what seemed to happen, from my obsessive-compulsive viewing of the replay: Lincecum started his motion, Molina called for time, Darling reflexively granted time but realized Lincecum had already committed a balk. It's akin to calling a runner out but changing the call after seeing that the ball actually popped out of the fielder's glove before the tag.

But if Molina calls time, isn't time out immediately and thus no balk can occur? No. Time is only out when the umpire says it is. If the infraction -- the balk -- occurs before the umpire calls time, it doesn't get erased just because the umpire grants time out after the infraction. Ya dig?

There are two problems with this interpretation. One: Darling called time almost immediately after Molina raised his hands. Was Lincecum reacting to Bengie or to the umpire? I lean toward the former, but it's so close. Which leads to Two: The overarching reason for having a balk rule is to protect the runner from unfair deception. It was obvious there was no deliberate deception on Lincecum's part, so Darling could have easily said, "OK, he started and stopped, but it's possible I added to the confusion so I'll give him a break."

The real culprit: Bengie Molina. He never should have called for time as Lincecum began his wind-up. Something was bugging him, obviously, or he wouldn't have done it in the first place. But it was dumb. Pitchers hate having their motions interrupted. It breaks concentration and it is unsafe. Molina should know better.

PLODAG: Jose Castillo. A triple and -- gasp! -- two walks, including one to lead off the ninth inning.

The Upside: Lincecum. He wasn't unhittable or overpowering, but he was economical. If the Giants had given him a couple more runs, he could have gone all the way after throwing only 86 pitches in seven innings.



Also on the Network:



[April 30, 2008 3:18 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Frank said

I have to admit I did not think of the interpretation that Lincecum stops his motion in reaction to Molina's calling 'time,' but, how could Darling know THAT? Darling has waved his arms clearly (and 2 times, I think) before Lincecum stops his motion. Darling's stopping play with a clear and unambiguous arm motion makes the play dead, and minute intepretations are both uneeded and uncalled for. Now, if Lincecum stops his motion or flinches during it before Darling calls time out, Darling has the right to 'correct' the call; but I don't see that on the tape. What I see is Lincecum starting his move, Molina calling 'time,' and Darling, almost instantaneously calling time - which should immediately stop play.

[April 30, 2008 5:57 PM]  |  link  |  reply
obsessivegiantscompulsive said

Darling clearly must have been betting on the Rockies to win. :^)

Plus, if it is that obvious, shouldn't there be another umpire who could call time and say, "Uh, Gary, you can't call time and then declare a balk." Is Gary the umpire chief? If not, then the chief should have had the authority to overrule or something.

This is like a referee calling a time out, then whistling the player for double-dribbling afterward.

But yeah, I was thinking the same thing, if Bengie didn't do that bonehead timeout in the middle of the windup, the umpire wouldn't have been put in the position to make such a bonehead call.

And really, lots of bonehead plays to go around in yesterday's game, Lewis, Winn, Velez, Molina.

The Merc complained about using Ortmeier to PH for Lewis, but Lewis never hit that well against LHP in the minors (though nicely in majors in very small samples) and Ortmeier has been hitting well since he gave up hitting lefty. I think it is picky to count this move as an iffy move.

[April 30, 2008 6:23 PM]  |  link  |  reply
obsessivegiantscompulsive replied to obsessivegiantscompulsive

Oh, and love the Beatle's references!

[April 30, 2008 8:15 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Frank said

For what it's worth, I thought the ground gave way when he got picked off. It wasn't that he took too big a lead or was leaning the wrong way, but when he dove back, his spikes just pushed through the dirt - so I see that more as an unfortunate physical problem rather than a mental error by Velez.

[April 30, 2008 8:41 PM]  |  link  |  reply
Zo said

A point from JC Parsons at Raising(Matt)Cain:
What everybody forgets is that a balk is a "dead ball" foul. Therefore "time" is always called as a balk is called. Just like a foul ball, first the ump throws his hands straight up (signaling time), then the call is made. (In the case of a balk, they usually point at the pitcher and then the runner, which is what Darling did.)
The ump blew it by yelling time first, but that was AFTER Molina and Tim had already messed up.