mudvnine

There's a big difference. With R2, they can inside move and feint or throw all day long with no risk of balking. With R1, they will have to react to R1's movement (which he cannot see) and then choose in the middle of raising his free foot where he wants to go. If all R1 is doing is taking a secondary lead and F1 uses the inside move, he's going to get balked. If it was as easy as you think, everyone would be doing it. I disagree, the move is quite simple....I believe everyone's not doing it because it's an illegal move, but I might be way wrong, and why I'll have to check with the umpires in my neck of the woods before trying it. But seriously, all we would have to do is make that long/slow deliberate move with the first top of the order guy that got on. You don't think an opposing coach or R1 wouldn't be running on the next pitch or two, if they weren't already on that one? Heck, I'd be willing to risk a strike or two if it's going to get me an easy out, set the tone for the rest of the game....and more than likely, hysterically watch the opposing coach come literally unglued with the umpire, when blue allows my RHP to hose his runner with a move like that. I think the daytime fireworks would be just spectacular.

My apologies, still trying to learn the terminology used at this site, as it is slightly different than some of the other BB sites I post at. Yes, a CW turn towards 2B is what is considered an "inside" move (F1 turned to the "inside" of his body to make the move vs. spinning backwards, or turning "outside" of his body to throw there). That's the crux of the conversation. If I've not been succinct enough with my point(s), I be happy to answer specific questions for clarity, but I'd rather not try to re-present all my thoughts/position(s) on the matter.

No worries on my part with it effecting their accuracy....like I said, many/most already do it now with an R2, with as good, if not better mechanics than with just an R1. This is because they don't have to change their rhythm as they do now with various R1s, from a longer/slower more comfortable leg lift with runners they don't anticipate running on them, to them having to rush/hurry with the "slide step" when the more speedy R1s are on base. What you state will become able to be much more consistent with their rhythm, and thus improve their overall strike efficiency.. I can also work with them now with this slower delivery mechanic(s) to actually get more coil/load around or into their pivot leg for more push out of it, as they can now think about turning their hips closed further and more deliberately, to allow their non-pivot leg to swing past the pitcher's plate, and R1 will be subjected to just stand there and watch, until that non-pivot leg gets past pitcher's plate....which by then will be way too late to attempt a steal. Like I said earlier, I look for advantages wherever I can find them, and if this is truly the case with the balk interpretation(s), than there's going to be a whole new way of doing business with my RHPs....if what you state is the consensus of the forum, and more importantly the umpiring association working our games. But thank you for making me delve deeper into what I guess I took for granted, because I've never actually seen it interpreted in the manner you're describing....or at least taken advantage of the way I'm mentioning if that is the case.

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^ I will add that the throw to third, or the throw/feint to second are legal if those bases are occupied, OR if unoccupied and a runner is advancing there, or giving the impression that he is advancing there. OK everyone, I'm fine with accepting that if that is the consensus here, but let me make sure I'm 100% clear here on what you're all saying/allowing/calling. So if I instruct my RHPs to slooowly lift their leg towards their balance point, and at any time on the way up (even late, almost to, but not quite at the top), R1 breaks for 2B...you're going to let my RHP make an "inside" turn, and throw to 2B to easily retire R1 without balking him? Yup. If he can pull this off, then kudos. It's harder than you think. No, not at all....see in all the time with an R2 in place at HS and below (many times too often for my liking, but whatever, that's just me). Simple "inside move" or "spaghetti move" as it's sometimes called at the lower levels, easily accomplished by most kids 12 and up. But this whole conversation is interesting to say the least. I'm going to have to begin asking this question specifically to our game umpires. You may have just suggested a method of stopping anyone from ever running on our F1s again. There will no longer be any need for the "slide step", as we can easily teach a slow lift of a leg for our RHPs, and simply have them listen for "RUNNER!!" on their way up...then "inside move" and easily throw him out should he hear that from F3. If so, "Thank You!!" in advance, I definitely have a little more checking to do. But if this is also the consensus of the umpires I work with, you/we may have just changed the game as we know it....at least at the HS level.

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^ I will add that the throw to third, or the throw/feint to second are legal if those bases are occupied, OR if unoccupied and a runner is advancing there, or giving the impression that he is advancing there. OK everyone, I'm fine with accepting that if that is the consensus here, but let me make sure I'm 100% clear here on what you're all saying/allowing/calling. So if I instruct my RHPs to slooowly lift their leg towards their balance point, and at any time on the way up (even late, almost to, but not quite at the top), R1 breaks for 2B...you're going to let my RHP make an "inside" turn, and throw to 2B to easily retire R1 without balking him?

Let me just answer this.... ....with this bold below..... ....which I believe is 100% correct, as I asked/stated two days ago. If you are in agreement with the bold, than I am in 100% in agreement that F1 has started his delivery of the ball to the batter, which commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption per 8.01(b), and therefore a "pause" at the balance point would be a "stop" or "interruption" of that "started" motion ("start/stop"). However, if the bold is the interpretation you're using, then that same leg lift, also precludes a RHP from then turning to throw to an unoccupied 2B for the purpose of making a play if R1 takes off just after RHP begins that lift...as that too would be an alteration or interruption of his delivery of the ball to the batter, which he is now "committed" to per the rules, and should therefore constitute a "balk" ruling as well. No? This now just brings us full circle to why I'm simply trying to get a definitive interpretation from the group here, as to where, how, and when an F1 can move/throw once in the "Set Position", and how that all pertains to this "new move" that has suddenly popped up....as it can/will possibly change how I go about instructing my runners and/or pitchers to take full advantage of that if the bold above and/or my assertions drawn from it are not correct. For the record: Let me just apologize up front, if any of that came off sounding as a "veiled insult", as that was not my intention...nor has it ever been my intention at any other time during this discussion. mud -

What did he start and stop?

OK gentlemen, now that we've dispensed with the niceties, let's get back to this "when is a pitcher "committed" to deliver the ball to the batter from the Set Position?" question/discussion I've stated/"argued" it is when F1 lifts his non-pivot foot/knee to a point that it is physically impossible to throw to a base behind him (1B in the case of a RHed F1 for instance), while others have said that it is not until his non-pivot "knee makes ground to the plate", he creates "momentum to the plate", or "until he steps towards HP". Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong....what are you going to say to me when I come out to talk to you about why you just "balked" my F1 when he lifts his knee straight up, and pauses at the top of his balance position for a second or two, in order to see what the runner is doing. It certainly can't be the "After assuming Set Position, any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption" part of 8.01(b), because then I'm going to say...."But you just told me he's not committed to deliver the ball to the batter until his non-pivot knee "makes ground to the plate", or he has some "momentum to the plate", or "until he steps towards HP", and he's clearly not done any of that yet". OK, so I'm standing next to you on the field, hands tugged in my back pockets, staring at the ground in front of me, intently listening to what you're going to say....so what explanation/response do I hear to that? Thanks, mud -

Well, thanks for recognizing I'm more coach than troll, I would have hoped my 40+ years coaching from the youth through HS level would have tipped the scales slightly in the coach favor, even if I did come off a little brash initially....type A personality, what can I say. No problem, I'm not easily offended...been doing this way too long to let a little disagreement on something so small get under my skin. And not to worry, I treat umpires on the field far better than it might have come off here with my posts. I can truthfully say, that I've never once been "dumped" from a game at any level, have a great working relationship with 98% of the umpires I work with...even the ones I don't see eye-to-eye with on occasion....the other 2% are just hopeless, as I'm sure you've encountered in your 23 years in the coach's box, or as your partner on the field. See, and I went the other way (kind of), I started umpiring when I was 13 at our local rec league, and continued to do so through college, and only stopped when coaching was becoming a much more time consuming venture than I had expected, and scheduling conflicts became too much of a problem. But the "less than competent umpires" that you speak of, is one reason I push so vehemently to try to get a definitive answer from those here on rules (the "balk" for instance) that I believe are a little bit more cut and dry, and easier to interpret than most make then, but from past coaching experiences, and what I'm reading here, I guess not everyone holds that to be true. In just my personal opinion/experiences, the rules set forth at any level, are pretty easy to interpret, when the basic understanding, and reason for them is taken into consideration with regard to the overall spirit of the game. Thus the IFF rule discussion that I participated in earlier, and the balk rules here, seem to be easier to explain one's interpretation of them, but apparently I'm alone in that opinion....and that's fine by me. Thank you for your patience, and understanding of the situation.....and for not "ejecting" me from the board for "arguing" with the other umpires. All the best, mud -

Majordave, thanks for the cool down warning, I thought I was being polite, and respectful, but I must appreciate that there are different edicts of communication within the various communities of baseball...what or how I say something on the field to players and coaches, is certainly not the same way I can communicate it to an umpire. Dually noted, apologies to any and all offended. That said, I find this statement.... ....quite disconcerting from a moderator of an umpiring cite, and maybe part of the cause for my frustration. I come here to get a logical, well thought out, consensus answer from a group of "professional" umpires, and what do I get from whom I would presume to be one of the senior members of the crew? That the discussions "get hard, because they aren't easy to call or explain at higher levels? I can certainly appreciate that the application/enforcement of the balk rule(s) might be adjudicated differently at the various levels of play, but that shouldn't alter the generally accepted interpretation of the rules by the one asked to make such ruling determinations from them. Maybe I'm asking or expecting too much, or maybe this is by nature not a site at which I should participate...being the orange in the apple bin kind of thing. But if I do decide to make this my last post here, before parting, I do just want to say that....I most certainly do appreciate all that you guys do out on the field, in a position that for much of the time you're in a lose/lose situation. Make a call one way, and you have one coach blowing a gasket....had you made it the other, you simply have the other coach up in arms. Not a position that most people would want to put themselves into, without an obvious love for what they do, and the game itself. I do recognize that, and respect and thank you guys for being willing to subject yourself to such inherent unpleasantness, and for your part in making the great game what it has been, and will be in the future. Back to the coaches' office (or troll cave, whichever you prefer), mud - PS. My apologies if that was again too longwinded or not properly paraphrased....what can I tell ya, "dumb coach".

Ugh, you guys are still not getting what I'm asking, or maybe I'm not asking it correctly. Let me see if I can simplify or be more succinct. What do you as umpires use to determine when a pitcher from the Set Position, is he committed to "any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter" per OBR 8.01(b).... ...or FED 6-1-4-d... ....to actually deliver the ball, and can no longer make a play on a runner? One person offered the free "knee making ground toward home", while "momentum to the plate" was also offered earlier...is that what you're waiting/looking for, or is it like how Justice Stewart tried to (or avoided to) define pornography...."I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it? Maybe put another way....once a pitcher commits himself to "deliver the ball to the batter", would it still be within the rules/interpretation of 8.05(d) for him to then make a "throw or feint to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play"....and if that's the case, than I guess a pitcher's commitment to complete his delivery is a mute point? ********* Oh and "maven", thank you for the best wishes of "good luck" with my games "dude", but I've never really relied on luck to have the success that I do from the game. I find my success by trying to get as much information whenever, and wherever possible, in order make future decisions on how I coach my players to take every advantage we can from the rules as written, and from those who are supposedly able to interpret them logically and fairly. My apologies if the questions are too difficult for you to answer or gosh forbid on record publicly, and that flying by the seat of your pants should you ever unfortunately run into such play....seems to be your mode of operation. That's also good to know however, as when it comes to who I might consider getting information or input from in the future. Thanks (I think), mud -

Well I must say, I do appreciate the confirmation that umpires apparently disregard the rules as written...or if nothing else, appear to give contradictory opinions even individually. So.... ...then with a runner on 1B, how can he lift his leg to throw to an unoccupied 2B, when R1 takes off immediately upon (technically after if we want to split hairs) that leg lift....because R1 also knows that, "in practice, F1 cannot throw to the base behind him once he has lifted his leg", so the pitcher must be lifting his leg to "deliver the ball to the batter"? Also how can that, and this.... ....allow for an "inside move" after leg lift, which you also say you agree with? Let's turn the tables around here a bit, you and greyhawk are now the coaches, and I'm umpiring..... F1 is in his set position, you both know that "F1 cannot throw to the base behind him once he has lifted his leg", and you also know that the "practicality" of F1 "changing the move mid-stream of being able to use the inside move when F1's plan when he raised his knee towards the balance point was to pitch", simply because the "physics of it would be nearly impossible" for him to do anything different....when would you coach your players to break for 2B on a steal? Would you use all of the propositions you just offered, and have them leave on initial leg lift (pitcher's obviously not making a PO move to 1B), or would you now have to teach them something different...to wait until the pitcher's "momentum would be toward home" (which could be much later in the delivery, think of a LHed pitcher with an R1).... Would you say anything to me, when I see what your runner sees, and that when I see the pitcher lift his leg giving the appearance that he's not making a throw to 1B, so then he must be doing so to "deliver the ball to the batter", and I watch your R1 take off running at just that instant....but F1 does not throw to the batter, instead, he makes one continues svelte move to turn and throw to 2B, and I didn't "balk" him for that "deceptive" move? So did you guys instruct your player incorrectly, and if so, how will you teach him now if I don't "balk" the pitcher, and say that he was somehow just magically/miraculously able to suddenly, in an instant be able to go from what we all thought was to "deliver the ball to the batter", to making this "nearly physically impossible move" to retire your guy, by "throw[ing] to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play? What you and greyhawk are proposing, is that now there is absolutely no reason for me to teach any of my F1s a "slide step". All they now have to do, is slowly raise/lift the lead leg, and should R1 take off anytime during that slow/early lift...simply turn to the inside, and nonchalantly toss the ball to the fielder hustling to cover 2B. If we're talking FED ball, we can essentially throw out 6-1-4-d.... ...right out the window, Because apparently, "any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery", can now be used to deceive the runner into running, so F1 can simply turn and "throw or feint to any unoccupied base when it is not [in] an attempt to put out or drive back" the "deceived" runner, not to mention I'm sure a throughly confused runner as well....unless you guys taught him to wait until the pitcher's momentum started toward the plate, and then there be no reason he'd ever attempt to steal again given that little caveat. So how'd I do, is that now "clear as mud"?

How, or when, and by whom do you determine "intent", as to the timing of an "inside move" by a pitcher, to throw to an "unoccupied base"? I just had a poster at BBF tell me that.... I guess I'm asking....has umpiring been reduced down to it's just a matter luck as to whether the runner goes or not, making it just that easy, or is some thought put into the call and situation, as to whether the pitcher was actually reacting to what the runner was doing, or whether the runner ran due to the movement(s) or actions of what the pitcher was doing? In my purely "coaches" opinion, if a pitcher's "intent" BEFORE he starts a movement, is to throw to an "unoccupied base", and that if the fundamental "purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner"....than just a runner taking off on first movement (ie. leg lift) should not be the only deciding factor an umpire should have to make as to whether the pitcher's "inside move" to an "unoccupied base" is a balk or not. Seems like it takes any "judgement" out of the umpire's hands, but if that's how it being done now, I can tell you one thing...I'm going to be changing the way I coach my RHed pitchers on how to deal with runners on 1B from here on out.

OK gentlemen, I'm probably one of those "eyeball burning" coaches from BBF you so "lovingly" speak of...so let me present this to you for your (hopefully, after reading that) unbiased opinions. I'm sure this is where the "lifting the leg" thing came from when mentioned earlier in this thread.... This generally goes along with what "maven" said when he stated, "...it would be nearly impossible to do an inside move mid stream when F1 had every intent to pitch". So are you saying that none of you (besides maybe "maven") are able to determine "intent" of the pitcher, even though in the comment of 8.05(d)... ...you are asked to determine the "intent" of the runner? So assuming you are able/capable, then what predicates when F1 is moving to "deliver the ball to the batter" vs. to "throw the ball to a base", and when does the runner's "intent" come into play vs. that of the pitcher? Because isn't the very essence of the "balk" rules set forth so that.... ....and a pitcher lifting his leg to attempt an "inside move" to an "unoccupied" 2B is only to do so with what "intent"? I mean, what else would he have in mind with a runner on 1B by attempting that? And just to be clear, I understand that in the FED Rule 6-1-4(a. and b.), allow a little more leeway for the pitcher, and his "intent" (he could "drive back a runner" who's taking a longer secondary lead by interpretation) at the HS level, but the question was posed to Lackey, and Hamilton per the OBR interpretation(s). OK, that's about it....I'm curious to hear your thoughts/interpretations of the above. Thanks, "Eyeball burning" mud -

You don't need to decide before the ball reaches it's apex. You shouldn't decide until then. Yes, my thought(s) exactly...... We have 12U players and up, who are running the scenarios through their heads to decide whether to let the ball drop or not, yet the umpires on the field say that they're incapable of doing the same? Sorry fellas, but that's a bit disconcerting from a coach's POV if that's truly the case of the umpires they're sending to the field. Maybe I should just stay in the "Coach Office" for good, as this may be the wrong place for me.....because I don't want to give the wrong impression of being contentious wrt the excellent umpiring that we get 95% of the time. Now that doesn't mean I won't peek out the window a time or two also, mud -