Fake to 3rd question

[mikecw_1968]

I did a search for this specific play but I couldn't find one.

 

Runner on 2nd.  If that runner takes off for 3rd, the pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play.  However, if R2 breaks for 3rd...the pitcher, while on the rubber, steps to 3rd to make a play...R2 stops and goes back to 2nd...the pitcher doesn't throw to 3rd because R2 went back.

 

Is this considered a fake throw to 3rd and hence a balk?  My gut and common sense tells me that it is not a balk because R2 caused the pitcher to not throw to 3rd by going back to 2nd.

[ricka56]

8.05(b) says F1 can't feint (fake) to 1B or 3B. I wouldn't consider your play to be a feint to 3B. It was a play attempting to retire a runner (R2).

[Richvee]

I think we have a balk. Consider this. R1. LHP. R1 takes off for 2nd, F1 steps to 1st, doesn't throw. Balk all day. I'd think same to 3rd for a RHP. If he throws to 3rd I don't have a balk throwing to an unoccupied base because he is making a play on a runner, even though the runner stopped. However, R2 has to start running...A deek isn't enough. 

[ricka56]

I think we have a balk. Consider this. R1. LHP. R1 takes off for 2nd, F1 steps to 1st, doesn't throw. Balk all day. I'd think same to 3rd for a RHP. If he throws to 3rd I don't have a balk throwing to an unoccupied base because he is making a play on a runner, even though the runner stopped. However, R2 has to start running...A deek isn't enough. 

I think your R1 example would be more analogous if you had R3 and R3 took off for HP when F1 started to throw to 3B and then stopped. I don't think its the same with R2.

[Scratch Franzeo]

Balk

[Richvee]

Step to 1st or 3rd from the rubber without a throw = balk. I wouldn't think where a runner is would matter. 

[mstaylor]

It's a balk, if he steps to third and doesn't throw. If R2 breaks and stops and the pitcher throws to third, then you have to decide if it was an aborted advance, or a feint. If it is an aborted attempt then no balk, if he throws. If it is just a feint then even with a throw then it a balk. 

[afaber12]

Is this considered a fake throw to 3rd and hence a balk?

Let's look at the rules:

 

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

(b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;

 

According to 8.05(b), the described play is a balk, plain and simple. There is a provision under 8.05(d) to go to an unoccupied base, but that's for the purpose of making a play. Even though it allows for a feint as well as a throw, it doesn't exempt the pitcher from 8.05(b), nor does 8.05(b) provide an exemption for when 8.05(d) applies.

 

My gut and common sense tells me that it is not a balk because R2 caused the pitcher to not throw to 3rd by going back to 2nd.

 

Yes the runner may have caused the lack of throw, and even likely caused the initial intent to throw by the pitcher. But he did so in a way that put himself more at risk of being out than he was if he'd stayed where he was. To me, that's the same sort of thing as when a RHP steps to 1B for a pick off attempt on R1 without seeing where R1 is. As he turns around, he realises that R1 is still standing on the base. He still has to throw the ball, otherwise its a balk. In that case, the runner would still have caused the lack of throw - through inaction this time instead of action.

[ricka56]

But 8.05(b) is talking about a feint, a fake, a bluff. That's not what you have here. The OP is a play to cut off a runner who is attempting to advance. That's not any kind of feint, its a legitimate play to retire a runner attempting to advance, and its always been the right thing to do. The alternative is to either allow R2 to advance far enough to 3B so that he can't/won't retreat and then throw (at the risk of R2 being safe at 3B) or throw too early and allow him to retreat (and give up the gift out on R2's bone-head base running error). I don't think that was the intention of this rule change (though if the others are right, this is another reason to hate this new rule).   

[afaber12]

But 8.05(b) is talking about a feint, a fake, a bluff. That's not what you have here. The OP is a play to cut off a runner who is attempting to advance. That's not any kind of feint, its a legitimate play to retire a runner attempting to advance, and its always been the right thing to do. The alternative is to either allow R2 to advance far enough to 3B so that he can't/won't retreat and then throw (at the risk of R2 being safe at 3B) or throw too early and allow him to retreat (and give up the gift out on R2's bone-head base running error). I don't think that was the intention of this rule change (though if the others are right, this is another reason to hate this new rule).   

 

If its not a feint, what is it? Where in the OP is there any attempt to retire the runner? I'd grant that its an attempt to stop the runner from advancing, but that's something different. A fielder standing near the base is an attempt to stop the runner from advancing - not letting (or trying not to let) the runner get a big enough lead to steal the base, or to advance an extra base on a base hit. A fielder standing near an occupied base is most definitely not a play.

 

I'd have this as a balk even before outlawing the fake to third. The only way I can see this type of situation not being a balk (prior to the rule change) is if the pitcher steps to third without throwing, then immediately throws to 2nd. You might be able to convince me that combination is not a balk, on the basis that the no-throw to 3rd was made for the purpose of making the throw to 2nd, and that throw to 2nd being an attempt to get the runner out. But I'd still need some convincing.

 

And unless the runner is a long way towards 3rd when the pitcher starts to move - in which case why doesn't the pitcher still throw, whether the runner turns around or not - why isn't the pitcher's first move to step off? Either the runner's close enough to 2nd for that to be it, or he's far enough off that the pitcher then holds the ball up and heads straight for the runner, forcing him to decide which way to go, and most likely getting in a rundown of some kind. When I've seen this type of situation and the pitcher is initially unaware of the runner going is to "step off".

[Thunderheads]

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok?

 

Balk ...

 

"next"?

[mstaylor]

This has always been a balk, the rule change is not the reason it is a balk, you can't feint to any base unless it to make a play. Move the play to R1 and have the feint to second and it is still a balk. HS allows the portion that says," Make a play or drive a runner back." So in HS no balk, in OBR, balk. 

[Jocko]

THAT'S A BALK! TIME!

[JaxRolo]

I don't think anyone else has said this but; That's a balk! Time!

[maven]

The OP is a play to cut off a runner who is attempting to advance.

 

It's not a play until he throws the ball. A play is a tag or tag attempt, and F5 can't make a play without the ball.

[ricka56]

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok?

 

Balk ...

 

"next"?

You live in America (I think). No one is forcing anyone to read or write to this thread.  

 

This has always been a balk, the rule change is not the reason it is a balk, you can't feint to any base unless it to make a play. Move the play to R1 and have the feint to second and it is still a balk. HS allows the portion that says," Make a play or drive a runner back." So in HS no balk, in OBR, balk. 

Can you justify your claim that this was always a balk with OBR 8.05(d) (which I don't think changed and I think better applies to the OP).  It is a balk when...the pitcher, while touching the plate, throws, or feints to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play.

 

 

The OP is a play to cut off a runner who is attempting to advance.

 

It's not a play until he throws the ball. A play is a tag or tag attempt, and F5 can't make a play without the ball.

 

I can't understand why this isn't considered a play. Recently we had a LL sitch where R2 ran into F6 who was in the process of trapping R3 between 3B and HP. Even though F6 was not immediately throwing/tagging a runner, I believe the consensus was that that situation was a play (and therefore interference). This OP is not any different. F1 has trapped R2 and is making a play. If you argued that the LL sitch was a play, how can you say that this OP is not.

 

Please look again at 8.05(d). A feint to an unoccupied base is legal if F1 is making a play. If a feint couldn't possibly be a play, then the feints to an unoccupied base part of 8.05(d) doesn't make any sense. 

 

Why doesn't 8.05(d) apply to the OP?

[Thunderheads]

 

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok?

 

Balk ...

 

"next"?

You live in America (I think). No one is forcing anyone to read or write to this thread.  

 

 

 

Sure do, which means I have a right to my opinion

[ricka56]

 

 

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok?

 

Balk ...

 

"next"?

You live in America (I think). No one is forcing anyone to read or write to this thread.  

 

 

 

Sure do, which means I have a right to my opinion

 

Great...opine away. I'd be interested in your opinion of my last post.

 

You seemed to want to limit the thread to less than 15 pages for some reason. I know that some thread turn into a waste of server space, but sometimes we may need 15+ pages to get things settled...sometimes not.   

[Jocko]

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok? Balk ... "next"?

You live in America (I think). No one is forcing anyone to read or write to this thread.   

This has always been a balk, the rule change is not the reason it is a balk, you can't feint to any base unless it to make a play. Move the play to R1 and have the feint to second and it is still a balk. HS allows the portion that says," Make a play or drive a runner back." So in HS no balk, in OBR, balk.

Can you justify your claim that this was always a balk with OBR 8.05(d) (which I don't think changed and I think better applies to the OP).  It is a balk when...the pitcher, while touching the plate, throws, or feints to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play. 

The OP is a play to cut off a runner who is attempting to advance.

 It's not a play until he throws the ball. A play is a tag or tag attempt, and F5 can't make a play without the ball.

I can't understand why this isn't considered a play. Recently we had a LL sitch where R2 ran into F6 who was in the process of trapping R3 between 3B and HP. Even though F6 was not immediately throwing/tagging a runner, I believe the consensus was that that situation was a play (and therefore interference).  I would have OBS, not INT. And a fielder moving into position isn't a play.

[Thunderheads]

 

 

 

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok?

 

Balk ...

 

"next"?

You live in America (I think). No one is forcing anyone to read or write to this thread.  

 

 

 

Sure do, which means I have a right to my opinion

 

Great...opine away. I'd be interested in your opinion of my last post.

 

You seemed to want to limit the thread to less than 15 pages for some reason. I know that some thread turn into a waste of server space, but sometimes we may need 15+ pages to get things settled...sometimes not.   

 

Ricka,

It was just a generic comment based on my experience here, and others can probably attest .....

 

Sometimes the simplist rulings / situations gets picked apart, and all the sudden you have 15+ pages on what usually turns into a subject only remotely related to the OP

 

I don't want to limit it, ....but why turn a mountain out of a molehill .... especially when the questions' been answered ....  that's all

[ricka56]

 

I would have OBS, not INT. And a fielder moving into position isn't a play.

 

OK, I don't want to rehash the LL play, but of all the possible calls on that sitch (interference, obstruction, or that's nothing), I think OBS was by far the minority opinion (which as TH points out everyone is entitled to).

 

I'm looking for a reason why 8.05(d) doesn't apply to the OP. If you say a feint is not a play, then why is it included as an option in 8.05(d) ?

 

 

I don't want to limit it, ....but why turn a mountain out of a molehill .... especially when the questions' been answered ....  that's all

 

My question hasn't. If you are balking F1 you have to have a rule to justify it. If you are calling a balk, what rule did F1 break, and why doesn't the exception in 8.05(d) apply?

[jmpnjmy]

For the play to happen you have to have ball and runner.  In your situation you don't have either at third.

[ricka56]

For the play to happen you have to have ball and runner.  In your situation you don't have either at third.

So by your logic, if F1 does throw to 3B then you wouldn't have a runner and the ball either and therefore, no play. So by this logic, the throw to 3B would be a balk violation of 8.05(d) a throw to an unoccupied base without a play. You can't have it both ways.

[jmpnjmy]

 

For the play to happen you have to have ball and runner.  In your situation you don't have either at third.

So by your logic, if F1 does throw to 3B then you wouldn't have a runner and the ball either and therefore, no play. So by this logic, the throw to 3B would be a balk violation of 8.05(d) a throw to an unoccupied base without a play. You can't have it both ways.

 

What I'm saying is that for there to be a play you must have both the ball and the runner.  If F1 throws the ball to third and there is no runner, what play is being made at that unoccupied base? It's a balk all day long.  If F1 feints the throw to the unoccupied base then you still don't have a play because you still don't have both ball and runner.  Also a balk

[Thunderheads]

 

 

I would have OBS, not INT. And a fielder moving into position isn't a play.

 

OK, I don't want to rehash the LL play, but of all the possible calls on that sitch (interference, obstruction, or that's nothing), I think OBS was by far the minority opinion (which as TH points out everyone is entitled to).

 

I'm looking for a reason why 8.05(d) doesn't apply to the OP. If you say a feint is not a play, then why is it included as an option in 8.05(d) ?

 

 

I don't want to limit it, ....but why turn a mountain out of a molehill .... especially when the questions' been answered ....  that's all

 

My question hasn't. If you are balking F1 you have to have a rule to justify it. If you are calling a balk, what rule did F1 break, and why doesn't the exception in 8.05(d) apply?

 

I have a 8.05(d) violation....HOWEVER, there's not a ton of information here in the OP to describe exactly what happened ...it's a HTBT ....

[jmpnjmy]

 

 

 

I would have OBS, not INT. And a fielder moving into position isn't a play.

 

OK, I don't want to rehash the LL play, but of all the possible calls on that sitch (interference, obstruction, or that's nothing), I think OBS was by far the minority opinion (which as TH points out everyone is entitled to).

 

I'm looking for a reason why 8.05(d) doesn't apply to the OP. If you say a feint is not a play, then why is it included as an option in 8.05(d) ?

 

 

I don't want to limit it, ....but why turn a mountain out of a molehill .... especially when the questions' been answered ....  that's all

 

My question hasn't. If you are balking F1 you have to have a rule to justify it. If you are calling a balk, what rule did F1 break, and why doesn't the exception in 8.05(d) apply?

 

I have a 8.05(d) violation....HOWEVER, there's not a ton of information here in the OP to describe exactly what happened ...it's a HTBT ....

 

True that