roothog66

At the younger youth ages where teams turn it into a track meet by stealing on every pitch, I often used this as gamble. At those ages, the steal rates approach 100% and there is very little risk. You don't have to do it very often and, even if the runner doesn't go and there's a balk committed, it certainly gets into the head of whoever is calling for steals and cuts out the "steal on every pitch mentality." At older ages, the risk starts to outweigh the reward and I only very occasionally used it when either I had stolen the signs or had an exceptionally good base stealer that I thought was almost surely going on the first pitch and would almost surely be successful. The other situation is 3-2 count, 2 outs and I've noticed a team has a tendency to take off at first movement. It's often argued that this is a bush move. However, I only see it as giving the RHP same advantage that a lefty has. With a lefty on the mound, the runner has to either wait for the pitcher to start towards the plate at which point he is committed to pitch or take a gamble and go on first movement. The inside move by the righty only puts the runner in the same place hi is with a lefty. Now, in case the OP is thinking about trying to teach his pitchers to start their motion and then decide on whether to pitch or move inside - forget it. It's almost impossible to teach. Just stick with taking a guess and going for it. At youth levels, if you're wrong, you just give up second which was probably going to happen on the next pitch, anyway.

Actually, at older ages, I only did it on occasions where I stole signs which rarely happened more than once before signs got better. Often at 12u and (more often) below you have runners take off and steal on practically every pitch. Do this once or twice and they stop even if they catch you with a balk once the oppo coach understands that this is legal. They still steal, but get a little more cautious. I actually rarely did this after 11u. I did try to teach making the adjustment on the fly and it was more difficult and affected the pitch way to much to be useful.

While it is difficult to execute for an F1 when it is a reaction, it's quite easy to do as a "guess." My pitchers used this extensively in youth ball. It's a risk. If you guess right, you get the pickoff. At any rate, even a failed attempt was quite effective at stopping the track meet mentality at youth ages where the runners automatically take off on every pitch. At older ages, it's impractical, however. You also run into umpires at younger ages that either don't understand the "to make a play" exception or have misinterpreted it with anything from an idea that the runner has to have taken off before the pitcher begins his motion or some idea that he has to be "half way." However, a lot more umpires than you would think understand it perfectly. Very few coaches do, though. So, lots of arguments.

This post couldn't help but remind me of something that happened years ago in an 8u game I was involved in. Same as the OP, a bench player came in late and ran to left field to replace the current F7. No one was paying too much attention and, as the old F7 was running back to the 3B dugout, a pitch was thrown and the batter popped one up foul behind third. The kid running to the dugout from left caught the ball on his way back to the dugout. Not sure what the call would have been, but PU just called it a foul ball, strike one and we carried on. It was more funny than anything else.

Yep. Never mind. I thought it was strange it hadn't come up.

OK. I'm not sure if this has been covered here. I looked around and couldn't find anything. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mlb-big-league-stew/ump-uses-shady-move-in-attempt-to-sabotage-high-school-playoff-game-220018508.html For those who haven't seen this, you can clearly see the first base ump here in a Texas high school playoff game rotate to home on a dinger and cover the plate with dirt. There has ben a lot of anger spread around and this ump is being investigated by the UIL. However, I have heard one explanation that seemed plausible from an umpire elsewhere. His explanation is that this is a common prank pulled by BU's when they rotate home as it forces the PU to clean the plate when he returns. Anything to this?

Having used this a LOT through youth ball (not as much by high school age), I can tell you that it is all but impossible to teach as a reaction. How it works, though, is when it is preplanned as an inside move. Of course, you're guessing. If the runner doesn't go, it's a balk. I found it extremely useful at younger ages (9-12) where the game becomes a track event and runners steal on almost every pitch. It shuts that down quickly, provided you don't have an ump who doesn't understand the "make a play exception." At the younger ages, you have little chance to stop runners as it is, so the balk risk isn't very disadvantageous. Even a failed attempt makes a coach stop sending runners automatically. At older ages, I used it only when I 1) had stolen their steal sign and was pretty confident that a steal was coming or 2) had that exceptional base stealer on first that was probably going and I wasn't going to stop if he did go. Note that John lackey tried this once last season with Hamilton on first, but he didn't go so a balk was issued.

I've rarely seen an organization that uses differential as a tie breaker that doesn't cap it at 7 or 8 runs max. I prefer differential to runs against, both for the reasons Rich brings up and for the fact that it almost forces teams to use their best pitchers even when up big, just to hold back runs allowed. This promotes overuse of the top end of the staff and it always sucks when a team is beating you 16-0 and brings in their big stud because they have to make sure you don't score any runs.

Humble, Usually this is a planned play. The pitcher always has the intention of using the inside move and has either correctly or incorrectly guessed as to whether the runner is stealing. A pitcher whose intention upon lifting the leg is to pitch to the plate will have a difficult time refocusing his momentum which makes it more likely that the pitcher in question simply correctly guessed and picked off the runner. I used this frequently at younger ages where the runners go on almost every pitch. It effectively shuts down the "track meet" quality of younger games. At older ages, I've only used it when I've either stolen the steal sign or have an R1 who is not only an imminent threat to steal, but also is so good that my catcher is highly unlikely to throw him out making the balk risk a calculated one.

Had some confusion over this during the past Spring when I pulled the old "skunk in the outfield" play with runners on 1&3. I had R1 take a lead in short right field. Pitcher stepped off and headed toward R1 who just stood there (didn't make any advancement or retreat as he waited on F1 to get closer). BU called time and tried to call him out for being out of the base path. PU corrected him, but the opposing coach didn't get it.

The problem is that you are confusing a necessary condition with a sufficient one. In the described situation, it is necessary to meet the requirements of 5.08(b), but meeting the requirements isn't sufficient to end the game. In other words, the requirements of 5.08(b) must be met, but so must other conditions, which weren't. The rule is mainly meant to make sure that on a hit batter or walk that ends the game (or game winning hit), the batter/runner actually completes his journey to first and that the winning run at third actually crosses the plate. Now, as to the Arizona play. The ump screwed up the explanation there. In actuality, the game ends with a walk off because when the defense made its appeal, they first touched second base and then touched third. When they were awarded an out on the appeal at second, it took off the force at third, so the appeal to third was no longer good. Only one out was made through their appeals. Had they appealed at third and then appealed to second, no run should have scored.

My son uses a motion like this succesfully with a runner on second. He continues to keep his eyes focused on R2 almost to the point of release. He is able to do this without compromising his pitching. There is a rule (too lazy to look it up right now) that would indicate that a pitcher must be facing the batter when he pitches. However, I don't think that this move is what that rule attempts to dissuade and I have never heard a peep from either opposing coaches or umpires, so...

As a coach, I had just the opposite happen last year. In a summer game under OBR rules, the umps both allowed a feint to third from the rubber on the old feint-to-third-pick-to-first play. They were both primarily high school umps and also apparently don't follow MLB, because my contention that the OBR rule had changed to make such moves brought responses of "never heard that." To their credit, the UIC told me if I could show him the rule in the rule book, go for it. Even invited, I was hesitent to pull a rule book out on an ump. Gotta say, the PU was pretty cool about. I called him over to the dugout between innings and showed him the rule and he went to the other dugout to basically tell the opposing coach he was wrong. Now, if I had come unglued and ran out of the dugout waiving my rulebook, I doubt I would have been afforded such accomodations.

"SITUATION 19: Caught in a rundown between home and third, R2 is returning to third base when the catcher throws the ball to the third baseman who is covering the base. The third baseman does not catch the ball, which is caught by the shortstop who is backing up the play behind third base. Everyone else, including the third baseman, believes the third baseman has the ball when he tags R2 as he slides back into third base. The third baseman shows the umpire an empty glove and is confused as R2 safely slides into third base. The offensive head coach wants the umpire to declare a fake tag and award R2 home. RULING: This is not a fake tag. The third baseman simply did not catch the ball. (2-22-2)" Off topic, but from the above pdf. Not sure how this one happens.

​Even in the top of the first? Most run rules are designed to, at the least, make sure the losing team gets all of their players up to bat before the game is called.

Speaking from a coaching perspective, I would be very unhappy to pay $400 for a tournament and find a volunteer BU in cargo shorts and...shudder...a cardinal's hat.

​I always hated this quote, because while I think it correctly points out that such a move is allowed under the rules, it incorrectly states that "[t]his is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unocupied base." It most certainly is throwing to an unoccupied base, but is legal because it should be interpreted as a move to "make a play." The wording of this comment just confuses things.

A few years ago at 13u we had a kid we had picked up for the AAYBA World Series. He got picked off of second diving back on what looked to be a bad call. One of the the fathers on my team who is usually stoic (as well as most of the parents) was upset and mouthy about the call. I had to pull him aside and explain that the field ump who called him out was the kid's brother and that was his father behind the plate. They gave the kid no breaks in that game.

At levels above rec, I have no problem with open bases and balks being called. For the most part, it isn't that the kids are too young to learn, it's that the coaches are too inexperienced to teach it properly. 75% of coaches at 10u and below don't know what's a balk and what isn't.

Not that I can answer this question, but it would be hilarious to watch.

​LOL! Oh, my.

Honestly, Mud, as a strategy, it's not worth considering except at young "track meet" ages. It just doesn't work at anything above 11u unless you can steal signs on a consistant basis. If you think you can teach a pitcher to make the decision after he's began his motion, believe me, I've tried. It's a move that is next to impossible to do. Your pitcher either is guessing steal and going to second (guess wrong and it's a balk) or he's pitching. The momentum shifts involved make it hard to effectively make a late decision and throw anything close to a decent pitch. As a runner, you don't worry about it unless and until you actually run into a coach who would use it. That is very unlikely to happen. Look, I used it at 9u - 11u regularly and at 12u and 13u on rare occasions. After that, it's a waste of time to even think about. At those young ages, just showing it a couple of times resulted in runners at first treating rhp's with the same respect they gave lefties. It stops the track meet method of stealing bases dead. However, by a certain age, even the very best base stealers aren't going on every pitch. You can see a post of mine above involving th risk/reward analysis and why what Lackey did even with a runner like Hamilton is a high risk/low reward move and therefore not a part of the game at upper levels. I'll also admit that I first started using it after reading the question and answer from a Umpire manual years ago.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances. No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended. That is an excellent interpretation of why Comment 8.05 is there. I just noticed a typo that's kinda important...it should say "Deception is not illegal." I missed that, as well. Pretty much all puckoff moves contain a certain amount of intended deception. Take, for example, an inside move on an R2. It is clearly the intent of the pitcher that the runner believe that the pitcher is throwing to the plate. However, what ump in his right mind is going to call a balk, assuming it is done without violating any balk rules on the books, based on "intent to deceive."

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances. No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended. That is an excellent interpretation of why Comment 8.05 is there.

Is this, with no other balk rule violation, enough to call a balk? I ask because I just wonder if anyone here would ever justify a balk call with nothing other than "deception," and, if so, under what circumstances. No. There has to be a violation. Deception is not legal. And the clause regarding the intent of the pitcher is meant to minimize balks called, not increase them, by telling the umpire to ignore balks that are not advantageous if no deception is intended. Agree. If anything, I'd put the point more strongly: ignore borderline violations unless intent to deceive is obvious. I agree. I just too often here statements involving "deception" when judging whether a particular move is a balk. That sort of explanation irks me because I see it as irrelevant. You either violate a rule or you don't