I appreciate the quote, strengthens my stance (I had previously Wiki’d the balk rules, I guess that were fallacious or paraphrased). To me the phrase ‘directly toward’ conjures images of straight lines, which I think lends credence that old rule of thumb you so blithely dismissed. Think about it, you pick your right foot up, move it some distance and then set it down upon a straight line drawn between its origin and its destination-directly toward. However you seem to interpret that phrase to mean ‘sorta semi toward, as long as his foot lands in the correct quadrant’. Frankly, I can’t understand that interpretation, but I’m a big fan of concrete definitions-what can I say?
As far as the acceptance of maneuver goes, I’ll refer you to the traveling and palming/carrying rules in the NBA which are laughably enforced. Acceptance of a move by referees/umpires does not mean that move is legal, as per the rules.
“directly toward” is a term that can be interpreted. Like all such terms, it has no specific meaning. Thus, one cannot point to one’s own interpretation of the meaning and say, “See? This is what it means, and they aren’t calling it!”
How “directly” in a “straight line” does it have to be? We can’t be perfect, so no step will be exactly parallel to a line between first base and the pitcher’s plate. How much deviation becomes less than “direct?” Everyone will have some opinion on this; presumably baseball can either let it be called according to the determination of each individual umpire, or it can establish consistency by giving the umpires guidelines that are easier to interpret than “directly.”
You don’t believe it’s “legal,” but only because it doesn’t meet your own definition of an imprecise term. Unfortunately for you (and with respect, my supposition is that you dislike the failure to enforce at least in some respect because of Andy Petite and who he plays for), major league baseball currently disagrees with your interpretation, as per the rules.
Yes the phrase can be interpretted, but, to a rational being ‘sorta toward’=/=‘directly toward’.
I’d say 10-15 degrees is reasonable, but that is just my opinion. A 10-15 degree deviation from a set course would be approximately like starting from Denver with a stated destination of San Deigo, but actually travelling on a line toward Los Angeles. I don’t think most people would cry foul there. On the other hand, IIRC, I’d say Pettitte moves his foot approximately 40 degrees off of a straight line, which would be like saying you were going toward San Diego but setting off in the direction of San Fransisco. Consult a map, see if this isn’t a bit ridiculous.
The term is precise, its enforcement is imprecise-flagrantly in Pettitte’s case.
I can see why you would think so. For the record, I don’t like the Yankees-as for Pettitte, if I didn’t have to put up with his balking (and the talking heads constantly prasing him for it) I wouldn’t care one way or another about him. Fortunately I can look at things objectively-ask my friends who had to listen to me bitch about watching Greg Maddux pitch to a extra wide strike zone in the late '90’s, which he somehow merited because of his reputation as a control artist. At the time the Braves were my favorite team, and Maddux was (and still is) one of my favorite players, but the situation still pissed me off. If you are a rabid Yankees fan (which seems likely to me), please try to view the situation sans the distortion spawned by your allegiance-and please don’t defend something based strictly on fanaticism.
Given that YOU provided the quote of the rule with the phrase ‘directly toward’ in it, I am stultified by this statement. Imperfect enforcement doesn’t negate illegality.
&#@&%^ it drives me nuts when people try to distort a language to bolster their arguments. [walks away, fuming]