Jump to content

MLB Rule Change

humpire

By humpire
in Free For All

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 5287 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 22
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

carolinablue
carolinablue

+1. It's almost like if they change it you can strike one up for the rules myth perpetrators. Joe Morgan has said it should be a balk for years, do we really want him to be right?

Umpire in Chief
Umpire in Chief

I think I've seen it work 1 time, shame on you if you get picked off by it. It is a stupid move and fools (almost) nobody. I'm not so sure it needs to be a rules change, but l agree with what Jax s

Mike Prince

Mike Prince

Posted
Posted

Probably a good idea. Then in OBR games I won't have to hear a shrill base coach voice yelling "watch the 3rd to 1st move" every time we have R1 & R3. Have seen it attempted a lot (never very well), never have seen it work in any of my games (or any game). Now that I said that I'm sure someone will post a video showing a R1 getting banged out...

JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted

I say get rid of it. It will help speed up games a bit. I think! :blah :lookup

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

This was a discussion over the winter. Evans said MLB was close to making the rule change.

Obviously it didn't happen this year. It could still be legal at our amateur levels.

NCAA is in a new rule cycle next year. Wonder if they'll drive the ship in that direction.

Umpire in Chief

Umpire in Chief

Posted
Posted

I think I've seen it work 1 time, shame on you if you get picked off by it. It is a stupid move and fools (almost) nobody.

I'm not so sure it needs to be a rules change, but l agree with what Jax said, I too think it would speed up the game.

  • Like 1
sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

how do you outlaw it?

it's legality is rooted in one of the fundamental tenants of the balk rule.

Stepping to an occupied base is legal.

Feinting/faking to first is legal once F1 disengages, or otherwise legally breaks contact.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

how do you outlaw it?

it's legality is rooted in one of the fundamental tenants of the balk rule.

Stepping to an occupied base is legal.

Feinting/faking to first is legal once F1 disengages, or otherwise legally breaks contact.

As of now they don't need to disengage before wheelig and going to 1B. The change would be to make them disengage on the step to 3B.

carolinablue

carolinablue

Posted
Posted

how do you outlaw it?

it's legality is rooted in one of the fundamental tenants of the balk rule.

Stepping to an occupied base is legal.

Feinting/faking to first is legal once F1 disengages, or otherwise legally breaks contact.

+1. It's almost like if they change it you can strike one up for the rules myth perpetrators. Joe Morgan has said it should be a balk for years, do we really want him to be right?

  • Like 2
sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

how do you outlaw it?

it's legality is rooted in one of the fundamental tenants of the balk rule.

Stepping to an occupied base is legal.

Feinting/faking to first is legal once F1 disengages, or otherwise legally breaks contact.

As of now they don't need to disengage before wheelig and going to 1B. The change would be to make them disengage on the step to 3B.

(CURRENTLY) In OBR. F1 must break contact in his step to 3B in order to feint or throw to 1B.

In FED, F1 can simply step to 3B, stay in contact, then step to 1B and throw.

Are we talking about the same thing, Rich?

sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

I have been thinkin about it, and the article may not be providing the necessary details.

Perhaps they are just considering requiring a throw to 3B, ala 1B.

Does anyone have the text of the rule?

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

how do you outlaw it?

it's legality is rooted in one of the fundamental tenants of the balk rule.

Stepping to an occupied base is legal.

Feinting/faking to first is legal once F1 disengages, or otherwise legally breaks contact.

As of now they don't need to disengage before wheelig and going to 1B. The change would be to make them disengage on the step to 3B.

In OBR. F1 must break contact in his step to 3B in order to feint or throw to 1B.

In FED, F1 can simply step to 3B, stay in contact, then step to 1B and throw.

Are we talking about the same thing, Rich?

I thought so.

Is MLB trying to make the pitcher disengage BEFORE he steps to 3B? Screw them if that's what it's about.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

The article talked of a Soriano move where he does not disengage and doesn't get called on it. The rulebook is clear as mud because they say it's a balk if he spins in what is practically the same move without disengaging it;s a balk. That would imply if there's a slight pause it's OK? Maybe the article writer has it messed up.

sdix00

sdix00

Posted
Posted

I agree w/ Steven. OBR has to disengage. FED does not.

Steven, are you referring to the text of the new rule?

I am not referring to the text of the new rule. I have not seen the text. Hoping someone knows where it is?

carolinablue

carolinablue

Posted
Posted

IMO, if they make what is legal now ( pitcher must disengage before turning to 1B ) , illegal, then the only logical thing to do next would be to make the jump turn/jab step illegal. Is that where this is going ?

bam

bam

Posted
Posted

IMO, if they make what is legal now ( pitcher must disengage before turning to 1B ) , illegal, then the only logical thing to do next would be to make the jump turn/jab step illegal. Is that where this is going ?

Fine by me. 95% of the time it's poorly executed and could be called a balk anyway.

carolinablue

carolinablue

Posted
Posted

Well, I may be completely wrong but I was thinking that the only way to say a 3 to 1 move is illegal is to say the secondary move to 1B is not a legal disengagement and thus a balk. Well a jump turn is not an illegal disengagement either but is by interpretation an in contact move. I don't see much difference in the actual mechanics of the two moves except one is interpreted as a disengagement and the other is considered in contact. If one is a balk, why not the other. They need to be careful if they change it because they could cause problems in other areas. Just speculation.

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

I just don't see why this is the one rule issue they chose to deal with. There are other things that they could clean up in the OBR, and they nitpick this? It isn't like the offense is being put at some huge disadvantage, as it almost never works.

I would love to hear their rationale on this one, because right now it is idiotic.

th3

th3

Posted
Posted

i think the only change would be that they would make it a balk to feint to 3rd, just like it is a balk to feint to 1st..so its not the "3rd to 1st miove" that they are outlawing....just the ability to feint to 3rd w/out disengaging

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...