roothog66

Like I said, though, he's been doing it for four years. At least in this state, no one has bothered enforcing the whole "hybrid" thing, regardless of the POE. I do plan to work on having him keep motion through the first pause during a BP today, just in case the time comes that it is called a balk (surprised it hasn't happened yet). As to losing runs, it hasn't been a problem yet because he's only allowed one runner to reach third base in 21.2 ip this year. He's throwing a season-long no-hitter so far this year. If he keeps that up, he can afford one balk, I imagine. lol.

Yeah, and that's always been every umps explanation - that he's still moving - though I've never thought he was. I appreciate the advice. He only has a couple more high school starts, but want to prepare him to adjust if necessary.

Yeah, I get that. He's been doing it for four years and never gotten a balk call, though I agree it's a balk. Not sure about changing it this late since, yeah, he might only have two more appearances before he is "making money doing it otherwise." I would want him to be able to adjust once it is called a balk. Personally, I'm surprised that hasn't happened yet.

OK. I never thought of it as "any part of the glove below the chin" but, rather that if any part of the glove were NOT below the chin, it would not be a set position. However, the rules leave that open. I do, however buy the second argument completely due to the wording, "Natural preliminary motions such as only one stretch may be made." So far, it hasn't been called a balk, but we may need to prepare for when it is. Let me ask this. If he were to bring that glove up to his chin in the first pause, but eliminate pausing the hands and immediately, and slowly, bring the glove down to the waist while maintaining the first pause with the lower body, would you think the re positioning into the second "set" to be legal?

I'm sorry. Just trying to clarify. It's your interpretation that the motion after he stops at the chin is his "pause" from the stretch and that would make the second pause a "balk?"

I have a question concerning the set position. It's high school, so FED rule set. I've attached a video of my pitcher. He pitches exclusively from the stretch. IN the video, no one is on base, so you'll just have to imagine a pause before the pitch since he goes quick here. The issue is that there was a stink during our last game. The opposing coach is an ex-MILB umpire who insisted that his "double set" was a balk. Now, under OBR rules, I don't disagree. However, under FED, the set position is defined as, in part, "with the ball in both hands in front of the body and his glove at or below his chin." This, of course, is not in the OBR set. My argument would be that his first initial movement and stop is with his glove well above the chin, so he is not yet in the set position until the second pause, where he brings the glove down. So far, every umpire has held it not to be a balk. However, their explanation to the opposing coaches has more often than not been that he hasn't paused yet and is still moving. I don't think he actually is and I don't think their reasoning is right. I tend to believe that it's not a balk because, until his glove is below the chin, he's not in the set position. Thoughts?

Crazy that this is at the top of the thread. Almost the exact thing happened yesterday in the Auburn - Arkansas game. With a runner on first and one out, the Auburn batter blasted one to the left field wall. The left fielder leaped up and came down with glove closed. It looked to all concerned that he had caught the ball. R1, who was half way to second, retreated to first, momentarily passing R1 before turning back to first and continuing on. Umpire gathered and called BR out and it was scored a single and an rbi. I assume correctly, do I not, that if there had been two outs rather than one, the run would not have scored.

Neither the ump nor F6 was right. F1 has no obligation to throw to second at all, so a throw to F6 should have been treated the same as if he had simply feinted a throw and held onto the ball. As to how "new" the rule is, it, of course has only been relevant to third base under OBR since they removed the ability to feint to third.

Reminds me of an old 1&3 play where I'd have my R1 lead off about 30 feet or more into right field.

Now if the ump admits he didn't see it or was not in a position to see it, I might feel obliged to say, "yeah, it was off his foot."

I'm certainly not going out of my way to show up an umpire - "your call was so bad even I have to tell you."

I'm pretty loud and, if the covering MIF'er I'm watching breaks at the same time the pitcher starts his motion, I'm quite likely to be yelling "break" to my R2 loudly as the pitcher is in motion. I'm certainly not doing it to distract the pitcher and I don't know that I've ever felt like it did.

I also assume the play wasn't so much "overturned" as it was a situation where, after conferring with the PU, he changed his call?

May have been a glitch. Just a few minutes ago, when trying to get to that forum, I got a message saying I didn't have permission to view that thread. It works now, though.

I had started a thread in this forum concerning the Georgia incident. It was locked down because it was being discussed elsewhere and a link to that thread included. I participated a couple of times, but since am told I don't have permission to enter that thread and the link is likewise gone. So, does this mean since I don't have permission to enter the "Umpire News" thread, this an't be discussed on this forum by non-umpire participants?

So, waiting on some actual grounds for ruling on the appeal. It appears they either ruled that they are convinced the umps made the wrong call and are willing to make an unprecedented decision (which would have to be made on an inappropriate use of an unclear video) or decided that, in this case the rule was just too unfair and they would ignore it. Either way this opens up a Pandora's box of BS.

So the GHSA overturned the game on the walk-off walk. There will now be a game #3. While the original call may have been BS, it was a judgment call and by the book. GHSA appears to have completely lost their minds and ignored process. If I were an ump, I'd bee a little upset.

Interesting this video is here. We had this in a game Saturday and I was going to bring it up here. Ours was very much like this. Runner on third and the pitcher did the same thing only the catcher caught the ball. The umpires decided it was nothing and just called "no-pitch." My argument was that any motion made by the pitcher while not in contact with the rubber that mimics his pitching motion is an illegal pitch and subject to penalty. They did not agree. Since our batter put the next pitch over the left field fence, there was no lingering argument.

I'm going to guess that it was a jab-step. webspinnre, if you're around, was it?

Hah! For years I ran a professional sports photography company. In 2003, I was working the American Legion Florida State Championship game. I was standing behind first base. With a tie game in the top of the ninth, two out and a runner on third, there was a throw that pulled the first baseman off the bag. He made a swipe tag. The ump called him safe, ruling he missed the tag. This was my very first time out with a new Nikon D1 digital camera - my first experience with being able to review photos instantly. I had a beautiful shot of an obvious tag by F3. After the arguing dies down, I proudly showed the shot one of the coaches who was outside the first base dugout. He snatched the camera out of my hands, rushed to the PU and started arguing and shoving my camera in his face. The umpire then ejected ME off the field. I learned my lesson early on and never again showed a coach any shot during a game.

I only mentioned it because "disengage" is how the OP described it. If he's asking if you can "disengage" from the front, then, no, you can't. As to the post I was quoting, I just wanted to clarify that his use of the term "disengage" shouldn't be confused with the wording "disengage" as used in the rule books.

I think the confusion comes in that this (step in front and spin to second) isn't considered "disengaging" anymore than the jab step pick to first.

I think the added comment makes it clear that the umpire is to make the judgment based on the physical actions of a runner. In reality, a runner who is "feinting" with no intention of actually making a move on second base is physically applying the exact same actions as a runner who, as BalkHawk puts, has an "Oh SH*#" moment. I would have to believe that the wording "creates the impression" encompasses both actions in a way meant to imply that either action brings the exception into play. This removes from the umpire's responsibility the almost impossible job of reading a runners mind to determine if he were actually intending to make an advance and aborting the move or only feinting. In fact, the definition of feint is: " a movement made in order to deceive an adversary; an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack." In other words, a feint is an attempt to create a particular impression that is not a true attempt but intended, nevertheless, to convey the impression as if it were a true attempt.

I would say that under OBR, even a feint makes the move legal. Rule 8.05(d) Comment: When determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire should consider whether a runner on the previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base. A feint would be demonstrating "an impression of his intent" to steal. That's sort of the definition of "feint."

I'm with you here, which is why I hate Comment 8.05(b): (b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base. This comment seems not to recognize the exception at all, but instead apply some off the wall reasoning that makes second now occupied. The reason it's not a balk isn't because it shouldn't be "interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base." Of course, he's throwing to an unoccupied base! It's not a balk because of the exception to the rule.