<acronym title='Pitcher'>F1</acronym> Throws Cap on 3rd to 1st Move

[grayhawk]

This was a play described last night in my high school association meeting:

R1, R3. F1 in the set position makes the typical third to first move, however, while faking his throw he throws his cap towards third and then wheels and throws the ball to first.

There was in interesting discussion that followed, with me disagreeing with the instructors and most of the students. The Instructional Chairman came in later and gave his ruling as well. I'll withhold these details until later in the thread. Here are the questions:

1. Is this a balk?

2. Is this unsportsmanlike conduct?

Have at it.

[noumpere]

This was a play described last night in my high school association meeting:

R1, R3. F1 in the set position makes the typical third to first move, however, while faking his throw he throws his cap towards third and then wheels and throws the ball to first.

There was in interesting discussion that followed, with me disagreeing with the instructors and most of the students. The Instructional Chairman came in later and gave his ruling as well. I'll withhold these details until later in the thread. Here are the questions:

1. Is this a balk?

2. Is this unsportsmanlike conduct?

Have at it.

Theres some play where F2 throws a potato or someone on the bench throws a ball down the line. Id have obstruction and an ejection for unsporting conduct

[AZump78]

1. Is this a balk?

Was it done to deceive the runner?

2. Is this unsportsmanlike conduct?

Not familiar with this phrase-would it be a 15 yard penalty from the spot if so?

[semper_fi_72]

1. Is this a balk?

Was it done to deceive the runner?

2. Is this unsportsmanlike conduct?

Not familiar with this phrase-would it be a 15 yard penalty from the spot if so?

A good F1 will make movements to decieve the runners.

The difference between not calling a balk and calling one is "Was it a Legal Deception".

If F1 isn't deceving the runners then he sucks and they will run on him all day.

[Welpe]

Not familiar with this phrase-would it be a 15 yard penalty from the spot if so?

The FED uses it quite a bit in case plays.

I can't put my finger on an infraction that makes this a balk but I could go with obstruction here and at least a warning.

[Kevin Finnerty]

It's not obstruction, and it's only a balk after some heavy interpreting. (Baseball rule interpreting is sometimes like any organized religion: You get to interpret some rules to mean anything that makes things the most convenient for you, the interpreter.)

But, irrespective of whether or not it is a balk, it is absolutely unsportsmanlike, and I run him on the spot without warning. And bear in mind that I sometimes go whole years without running anyone, but I'm running that guy on the spot. And I would love to have someone argue it. I would relish the argument even more than the ejection. In fact, before it's over, I would probably need to change it to ejections with an s.

One of the things that makes me right for umpiring is my utter contempt for people that grievously disrespect the game. But the ones for whom I reserve the most contempt are coaches that teach this kind of crap. The potato guy, Dave Bresnahan, whose great uncle, Roger Bresnahan was the first catcher to wear shin guards, and the first catcher enshrined in the Hall, was actually released for his stunt. Let the cap thrower guy merely go to the bus and think about playing the game the way it is supposed to be played. And, hopefully the coach who devised the stunt can say or do enough to warrant going to the bus with him. Sometimes visiting with a wise, old bus driver can set a man straight.

[Welpe]

Kevin, under FED I think this play is akin to 8.3.2 Situation J.

F1 feints a throw to first base. Someone in the defensive team's dugout throws a ball against the fence alongside first base, making R1 think an overthrow took place.

RULING: The umpire shall call obstruction and award R1 second base. He shall also eject the offender from the game and issue a warning to the coach. (2-22-1, 8-3-2, 3-3-1g(4))

[Kevin Finnerty]

I would think that if it caused a runner to be picked, I'd call obstruction, and if they just retreated safely, I'd leave it with the ejection and subsequent lecture. I would love to make runner awards on it, but I still am a little unsure of the threshold there. But I like your interpretation!

[Welpe]

I'm with you. All I'm saying is FED gives us quite a bit of latitude in judging these situations. In OBR I'd say we don't have obstruction.

But, the more I've thought about it, the more I like the ejection in any code. This type of conduct just isn't baseball.

[yawetag]

Kevin, if you're calling OBS in a FED game, you're giving the runner the advance base automatically!

[Kevin Finnerty]

Kevin, if you're calling OBS in a FED game, you're giving the runner the advance base automatically!

Gotcha, but it has to be obstruction first.

[grayhawk]

I don't see any basis for obstruction on this play. The case play given is quite different. So here's what was discussed in the classroom:

The instructors and several students felt that it was a balk. When I challenged them to cite the rule that was broken, they said a couple of things:

1. It's deceiving the runner

2. It's a travesty.

I reminded them that there are many ways that pitchers legally deceive runners (the third to first move is meant to deceive R1, after all). I also asked them to find where a travesty is a balk. One of the instructors basically said that he would find a way to justify the balk, and while I understand his reasoning, I don't agree with it. It goes to my credibility if I am making stuff up.

My feeling was this:

1. If the play works and R1 is out, then the out will stand and I am ejecting F1 and the head coach for unsporting behavior.

2. If the play doesn't work and R1 is safe, then I will issue a warning to F1 and the head coach that if they try that again, they will be ejected.

3. In no case will I call this a balk.

When the instructional chairman came in and they asked him about this, he also did not have a balk. He saw a legal step to third, legally disengaging the rubber and a legal throw to first. He also said that he would warn F1 and the coach not to try that crap again.

[mtnump]

I would personally have a problem letting the out call stand if you eject for unsportsmanlike. If what the defense did was egregious enough to warrant an ejection then I am not rewarding them with the out...it was obviously beyond legal deception, balk.

Why would it be deemed bad enough to eject only if it worked? This act is either unsportmanlike or not...the result of the play shouldn't matter.

[sdix00]

I would personally have a problem letting the out call stand if you eject for unsportsmanlike. If what the defense did was egregious enough to warrant an ejection then I am not rewarding them with the out...it was obviously beyond legal deception, balk.

Why would it be deemed bad enough to eject only if it worked? This act is either unsportmanlike or not...the result of the play shouldn't matter.

I disagree. There are plenty of instances where UC results in an out. One does not cancel the other unless the rules say it does, ala MC v OBS.

The reason the EJ is important here is to make sure the game is played the way it is supposed to be played.

In Pro ball, the umpires might not EJ because the players will police this activity themselves. If players commit an unsportsmanlike act, they have made their choice and will live with the consequences.

However, in HS Ball, self policing is not an acceptable way to keep a game within the game as far as NFHS is concerned. So something else is needed. This is where the EJ comes in. Again, the player made his choice.

You can only call outs a finite number of ways. As such, there is even a smaller number of ways you can nullify them and UC is not one of them.

IMO, handle them separately.

[grayhawk]

I would personally have a problem letting the out call stand if you eject for unsportsmanlike. If what the defense did was egregious enough to warrant an ejection then I am not rewarding them with the out...it was obviously beyond legal deception, balk.

Why would it be deemed bad enough to eject only if it worked? This act is either unsportmanlike or not...the result of the play shouldn't matter.

Stephen covered much of my thought process. The unsportsmanlike act doesn't nullify the out. There is nothing in the rules that allows for:

1. Calling this a balk. Sorry, but the "deception" reasoning just doesn't fly. Cite a specific rule if you want to call a balk.

2. Nullifying the out.

I don't necessarily disagree that the result of the play shouldn't impact ejection or not, but since the offense was hurt by the out (which I cannot nullify), then I am going to hurt the defense as well. In the absense of the out, I am okay with letting them know that trying it again WILL result in ejection. This is a case where I get to use my discretion with respect to ejection, so I will use that discretion according to my sense of fair play.

[Welpe]

I don't see any basis for obstruction on this play. The case play given is quite different.

I don't think they are fundamentally that different. The FED obstruction definition is pretty broad and I would have no problem applying it in this situation. I do agree there is nothing here to be a balk.

[bpate]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

[JaxRolo]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

I can't read your post!

[bpate]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

I can't read your post!

Try it again. I have edited.

[grayhawk]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

This is not a "catch all" giving you carte blanche to call balks. If that was the case, then why not call a lefty stepping 45 degrees and picking a balk? The 45 degree step is not stepping "directly" towards the base and is intended to deceive the runner into believing that the pitcher is committed to home, but that is not called a balk.

[bpate]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

This is not a "catch all" giving you carte blanche to call balks. If that was the case, then why not call a lefty stepping 45 degrees and picking a balk? The 45 degree step is not stepping "directly" towards the base and is intended to deceive the runner into believing that the pitcher is committed to home, but that is not called a balk.

Understood, but this wasn't about stepping 45. Based on the situation and the comment in 8.05c, tell me why you don't have a balk.

[grayhawk]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

This is not a "catch all" giving you carte blanche to call balks. If that was the case, then why not call a lefty stepping 45 degrees and picking a balk? The 45 degree step is not stepping "directly" towards the base and is intended to deceive the runner into believing that the pitcher is committed to home, but that is not called a balk.

Understood, but this wasn't about stepping 45. Based on the situation and the comment in 8.05c, tell me why you don't have a balk.

I have a legal step. I have a legal disengagement from the pitcher's plate. I have a legal throw to first. Throwing a cap is not mentioned in any of the balks in 8.05. Find me a specific rule that says it IS a balk. What you copy/pasted before is not a balk rule - it's a comment that if you have any question about violation of the listed balks, then keep "deceiving the runner" in mind when calling it.

My point about the 45 degree step is that it's alot closer to a balk than throwing his cap. 8.05c specifically says the step must be "directly" towards the base, yet we allow F1 to step "more towards first than home" without balking.

If there was a protest and you defended your ruling with "it was deceiving the runner" then the protest probably gets upheld.

[sdix00]

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent

the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner.

This play initiated from the rubber as an obvious attempt to decieve. I have a balk.

This is not a "catch all" giving you carte blanche to call balks. If that was the case, then why not call a lefty stepping 45 degrees and picking a balk? The 45 degree step is not stepping "directly" towards the base and is intended to deceive the runner into believing that the pitcher is committed to home, but that is not called a balk.

Understood, but this wasn't about stepping 45. Based on the situation and the comment in 8.05c, tell me why you don't have a balk.

The onus is not on Grayhawk to explain a non-call. If we are going to call a violation and apply a penalty, we need to be able to cite the violation and apply the penalty correctly.

So, the real question here is, if you are going to call a balk, cite which rule was violated.

Deception is not one of the 13 listed in 8.05 or one of the other two listed elsewhere.

The Deception clause is to be used as a guideline when determining whether to call one of the 15 balks you are allowed to call.

[bpate]

Granted, there is no rule that says if you throw your hat from the rubber, then it's a balk. Of course, you can't write a rule for every possible situation; however, you can take the rules that are written and try to understand the intent of the rules. I think that is clear from the below excerpts (least relevant is #4) that intent to decieve is a balk. It seems obvious to me that intentionally deceiving the base runner from the rubber is considered a balk. In fact, the rules go on to say that is exactly the purpose of the balk rule.

8.05 C "Umpire should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner"

8.05 C "Straddling the pitchers rubber without the ball is interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk."

8.05 C "If there is doubt in the umpire's mind, the "intent" of the pitcher should govern."

8.05 C "However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then

immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels†and throws to first base, it is obviously an

attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly

toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk.

[grayhawk]

Granted, there is no rule that says if you throw your hat from the rubber, then it's a balk. Of course, you can't write a rule for every possible situation; however, you can take the rules that are written and try to understand the intent of the rules. I think that is clear from the below excerpts (least relevant is #4) that intent to decieve is a balk. It seems obvious to me that intentionally deceiving the base runner from the rubber is considered a balk. In fact, the rules go on to say that is exactly the purpose of the balk rule.

There are lots of ways pitchers intentionally, but legally, deceive runners. The fact that they are deceptive doesn't make them balks. How about a feint to second where the fielder dekes the runner into believing the ball went into the outfield and F1 tags the runner going to third? Deceptive? Yes. Balk? No.

8.05 C "Umpire should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner"

Right, the purpose of the listed balks is to prevent the pitcher from deceiving the runner. This still doesn't give you authority to make stuff up to call a balk. Also, this is not 8.05c, it is 8.05 comment.

8.05 C "Straddling the pitchers rubber without the ball is interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk."

This is not 8.05c - it is 8.05 comment. The "deceive" part is irrelevant. Straddling the rubber without the ball is one of the listed balks (8.05i to be exact).

8.05 C "If there is doubt in the umpire's mind, the "intent" of the pitcher should govern."

This is not 8.05c. It is 8.05 comment and as Stephen said, you can only apply this to one of the listed balks if there is a question in your mind about a violation of the listed balks.

8.05 C "However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then

immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels†and throws to first base, it is obviously an

attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly

toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk.

Again, the balk is not because he is deceiving, the balk is for not stepping to first before the throw. Specifically listed as a balk - 8.05c.

As I said, use "deception" as a defense of a called balk in a protest and see how that goes for you.