Jump to content

Matt

Established Member
  • Content Count

    3,860
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    62

Matt last won the day on November 23

Matt had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,529 Excellent

About Matt

  • Rank
    Sandpaper

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You quoted my original thought somehow. The difference is that you left the name out.
  2. What you're missing is FED's lack of logic.
  3. I used an All-Star titanium for years, then switched to a black aluminum because I had a field oft-worked where the titanium reflected into my eyes. Now I'm just a mask collector and I keep one for every occasion...silver, black (x2), gunmetal, navy pads, black pads, gray/black pads, light blue/black pads, light blue pads...
  4. Matt

    stealing home

    And none of those are relevant. In order: 1. Start-stop. 2. Simulating a pitch while not on the rubber. 3. Being on or astride the rubber without the ball.
  5. Matt

    stealing home

    And I feel if that interpretation is intended to mean that, it is not valid. (I'm not sold on the idea that it is intended to apply to this situation, absent the context of the passage.) There isn't anything that substantiates it and plenty of opportunities over history for evidence to have been created as such.
  6. Matt

    stealing home

    Intent is not a factor in making a legal de jure move illegal. It can make a illegal de jure move legal. Thus, it's not relevant here, as the move has nothing proscribing it. Intent is never a factor (unless specified by rule) in making a decision to call a balk; it can only play a factor in making a decision not to call a balk. I think my comment about the rubber was self-evident. A pitcher (absent other proscriptions) does not have certain limitations while not on the rubber. The offense is aware of when the pitcher is on the rubber and when they are not, and knows that the pitcher has fe
  7. Matt

    stealing home

    Intent does not define a balk. The set is not part of the pitch. This is why the rubber exists. If the offense is doing what they are supposed to, the pitcher is just wasting time.
  8. Yes, because both occupy that spot, and should be identified as such.
  9. Matt

    stealing home

    You just said that he separated his hands to throw or feint. Per the rule itself, those are not motions to pitch. This is legal.
  10. Matt

    stealing home

    And you would be wrong.
  11. Matt

    stealing home

    Despite what you keep saying, it isn't. Is a pitcher compelled to pitch if he comes set? Nope. It's not a pitching motion until a pitcher is actually pitching.
  12. Matt

    stealing home

    The question said nothing about disengaging. If he did, then you are correct.
×
×
  • Create New...