<acronym title='Pitcher'>F1</acronym> on his plate, but not set ....

[Thunderheads]

R1 ......RH F1 on his plate, .... ball in right hand, glove on left leg.

Now, I know he can't feint to first from this spot unless he properly disengages....but .....

Try to envision this ....

He glances over to first...back in to F2....then (still not set) ....with his right leg (plate/pivot) takes a small step forward from the plate then steps directly to first with his lead leg for a lazy throw over to F3.

Balk? or Legal move?

[grayhawk]

As long as he gained distance/direction with his step, this is a legal move. The step forward with the pivot is just part of his step to first. If he doesn't throw, it's a balk because he must step back behind the rubber to properly disengage.

[scrounge]

Absolutely a balk in <ACRONYM title="Federation Rules (High School)">FED</ACRONYM>....6.1.3 says the disengagement must be backwards, not forward. From the way it was written, there were two steps, not a jump step, so I have a balk. If it were close to one motion, then I'd say it was all part of one step to first and legal.

[JaxRolo]

Absolutely a balk in <ACRONYM title="Federation Rules (High School)">FED</ACRONYM>....6.1.3 says the disengagement must be backwards, not forward. From the way it was written, there were two steps, not a jump step, so I have a balk. If it were close to one motion, then I'd say it was all part of one step to first and legal.

+1 I agree. From the way Jeff described it it was a 2-step process not a jump move.

[Thunderheads]

It's very hard to describe...it was really like an all-in-one move .....boom-boom ...not quite a spin move, but not really two discernable moves.

make sense? :D

[Fittske24]

_{Balk, he gained distance and direction toward home.}

[sdix00]

I read the OP like a lazy jab step.

Maybe I am envisioning something different, but I don't have a balk.

We allow RHP F1 to jab his pivot foot toward 3B just prior to stepping to 1B with his free foot. I read the OP as a very similar move.

Also, if this is a borderline call, I see the F1 as gaining no advantage with this move. He is clearly signaling to the runner that he is going to make a play when he moved his pivot foot.

[NoCal Blue]

+1

[Thunderheads]

I read the OP like a lazy jab step.

Maybe I am envisioning something different, but I don't have a balk.

We allow RHP F1 to jab his pivot foot toward 3B just prior to stepping to 1B with his free foot. I read the OP as a very similar move.

YES!!! There are the words I'm looking for, thanks Stephen ....

That's more like it really .... no one made a stink, ...but the VC asked my partner and I between innings ...(nicely/calmly)

[UmpJM]

I concur with Dix - sounds like a "non-urgent" jab step.

As long as it's all done "without interruption or alteration", its a legal pick-off move from the rubber.

The rules do not constrain what the pitcher's pivot foot does on a pick-off move from the rubber.

JM

[grayhawk]

I read the OP like a lazy jab step.

Maybe I am envisioning something different, but I don't have a balk.

We allow RHP F1 to jab his pivot foot toward 3B just prior to stepping to 1B with his free foot. I read the OP as a very similar move.

Also, if this is a borderline call, I see the F1 as gaining no advantage with this move. He is clearly signaling to the runner that he is going to make a play when he moved his pivot foot.

You said it better than I did. I envisioned the same thing.

[NFUA_44]

The rules do not constrain what the pitcher's pivot foot does on a pick-off move from the rubber.

JM

This is really it in a nutshell. Thanks John

[mstaylor]

I envision a balk. Maybe not if I saw it but by description I am balking it. To me I would like to see the jab step go the way of the thrid first move. The 3-1 is far closer to being legal than the jab step is. I don't really have a problem with the jump step but the jab is actually counter to the rulebook.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

What "book language" do you think the jab step violates?

I don't believe there IS any.

JM

[Jocko]

So, the same move by RHP on R3 attempting to steal home, legal or balk? I've seen it and balked him. Are you saying it's different to 1b or that I kicked it? Honestly, opinions please. I see this somewhat regularly.

[johnnyg08]

Sorry to hijack, but I think Jeff got the answer to his question:

How do you deal with F1's who disengage to the side with their pivot foot? Does this qualify as a "don't do that?"

Especially if it doesn't affect anything?

[mstaylor]

The argument against the 3-1 move is the pitcher is illegally disengaging by stepping off toward third. However, we allow him to step sideways or forward then step to first and throw. I will allow him to jab toward third and step to first to throw. I will balk him if he steps forward then toward first. I'm sorry but that is an illegal disengagement. I will probably be in the minority here, and I'm ok with that. I have always done it this way.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

The problem I have with your interpretation is that the pitcher is NOT disengaging - he's initiating a pick-off move from the rubber.

The rules do not constrain what the pitcher does with his pivot foot on a pick-off move from the rubber. It's legal.

JM

[mstaylor]

You are probably right, definitely the majority view but I'm OK with that.