Balk - Throwing to an uncovered first base

[Replacematt]

No. There is no problem. You can disengage backwards, throw or feint, or pitch.

What constitutes a legal throwing or feint and pitch fall elsewhere in 8.

You have to look at all relevant rules, not just one.

[Jimurray]

I would argue that the throw was to 1B, F3 caught it before it passed over or close enough to 1B and it was not a balk under Wendlstedt's stricter criteria or Evan's looser criteria. It looked like Hickox called the balk before the throw was caught.

[Replacematt]

I would argue that the throw was to 1B, F3 caught it before it passed over or close enough to 1B and it was not a balk under Wendlstedt's stricter criteria or Evan's looser criteria. It looked like Hickox called the balk before the throw was caught.

Not even close to the bag. It only looks like that because of the very action you mentioned.

[UMP45]

I would argue that the throw was to 1B, F3 caught it before it passed over or close enough to 1B and it was not a balk under Wendlstedt's stricter criteria or Evan's looser criteria. It looked like Hickox called the balk before the throw was caught.

:shakehead:

[basejester]

No. There is no problem. You can disengage backwards, throw or feint, or pitch.

What constitutes a legal throwing or feint and pitch fall elsewhere in 8.

You have to look at all relevant rules, not just one.

Ok, where elsewhere in 8 do the rules clarify that making a "throw to a base" includes making some throws not to a base?

[Rich Ives]

No. There is no problem. You can disengage backwards, throw or feint, or pitch.

What constitutes a legal throwing or feint and pitch fall elsewhere in 8.

You have to look at all relevant rules, not just one.

Ok, where elsewhere in 8 do the rules clarify that making a "throw to a base" includes making some throws not to a base?

It's only balk if you do not THROW TO FIRST BASE.

Because that's the only way to balk in this situation it is therefore NOT a balk if you do not throw to a different base, or do not throw TO that other base.

MLBUM:

There is no violation if a pitcher attempts a pick-off at second base and, seeing no fielder

covering the bag, throws to the shortstop or second baseman, neither of whom is in the

vicinity of the bag nor is making an actual attempt to retire the runner.

Same concept at 3B.

[basejester]

It's only balk if you do not THROW TO FIRST BASE.

Because that's the only way to balk in this situation it is therefore NOT a balk if you do not throw to a different base, or do not throw TO that other base.

MLBUM:

There is no violation if a pitcher attempts a pick-off at second base and, seeing no fielder

covering the bag, throws to the shortstop or second baseman, neither of whom is in the

vicinity of the bag nor is making an actual attempt to retire the runner.

Same concept at 3B.

That's not a reference in rule 8, but thank you.

[Jimurray]

I would argue that the throw was to 1B, F3 caught it before it passed over or close enough to 1B and it was not a balk under Wendlstedt's stricter criteria or Evan's looser criteria. It looked like Hickox called the balk before the throw was caught.

I'm not sure what your emoticons mean. Have you seen Evan's video?

[Replacematt]

No. There is no problem. You can disengage backwards, throw or feint, or pitch.

What constitutes a legal throwing or feint and pitch fall elsewhere in 8.

You have to look at all relevant rules, not just one.

Ok, where elsewhere in 8 do the rules clarify that making a "throw to a base" includes making some throws not to a base?

I'm going to teach you to fish. What constitutes a legal throw by a pitcher?

[johnnyg08]

That's not a reference in rule 8, but thank you.

That is why you have to be more than a rule book umpire. Yes, knowing the rule book will help you become a better umpire, but if you umpire by the rule book and only the rule book, it will get you into trouble. Why? Because there are several errors in the rule book that will get you into trouble. There are very good umpires on here who are trying to help you.

[basejester]

I'm going to teach you to fish. What constitutes a legal throw by a pitcher?

Look, if you can't produce the rule that's fine. I'm disappointed if the MLB interpretations don't have a solid basis in the rules, but that's clearly not your fault. Here is everything that I think is relevant about a legal throw, other than a pitch:

---

8.01

( c ) At any time during the pitcher’s preliminary movements and until his natural

pitching motion commits him to the pitch, he may throw to any base provided he

steps directly toward such base before making the throw.

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

(B) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and fails to

complete the throw;

( c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before

throwing to that base;

(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied

base, except for the purpose of making a play;

--

[basejester]

That is why you have to be more than a rule book umpire. Yes, knowing the rule book will help you become a better umpire, but if you umpire by the rule book and only the rule book, it will get you into trouble. Why? Because there are several errors in the rule book that will get you into trouble. There are very good umpires on here who are trying to help you.

I appreciate that help.

We're in a shockingly bad situation. Rules shouldn't be in the interpretation manuals. Rules should be in the rulebook. If there's an error in the rulebook, then we should fix the rulebook. If the rulebook doesn't have an error, then maybe the interpretation has an error, and we should fix that.

Look at the Armbrister play. It should be obvious that there should be a single source for rules.

Basically, I think being anything BUT only a rulebook umpire is doing it wrong.

[Jocko]

You can throw to the SS or 2nd baseman with a runner at second. Even when they are in their position and not at the base. Or with a runner at 3rd you can throw to the 3rd baseman .

I find this is a very frustrating part of the ruleset to understand.

--------------

8.01 . . .

(B) The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands

facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of, the

pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to a

complete stop. From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw

to a base or step backward off the pitcher’s plate with his pivot foot.

------------

But you're saying he can also throw to fielders in order to make a play?

Have you not seen the play where F8 slips in behind 2b on a pick?

When considering rules, it's not only "what rule supports this?" It's also "What rule PROHIBITS this?"

[Umpire in Chief]

I appreciate that help.

We're in a shockingly bad situation. Rules shouldn't be in the interpretation manuals. Rules should be in the rulebook. If there's an error in the rulebook, then we she fix the rulebook. If the rulebook doesn't have an error, then maybe the interpretation has an error, and we should fix that.

Look at the Armbrister play. It should be obvious that there should be a single source for rules.

Basically, I think being anything BUT only a rulebook umpire is doing it wrong.

That's one of the lovely things about baseball rules. The rules can be imperfect/vague and we do have to rely on interpretations. It takes dedicated umpires to delve in to the situation and resolve the situation.

If it were too easy we wouldn't have umpiring forums. :smachhead:

[Umpire in Chief]

You don't see this every day.

In others words I got caught cheating so I want to go home! The first base coach knew it was a balk! Also it's not throwing to an unoccupied base.

Correct, I'll fix the title.

Thanks. I probably wouldn't have got over 7-8 hours of sleep worrying about it! LOL

I think that was my problem it was after 2 AM and I wasn't functioning too well.

[Haid D' Salaami]

This balk, in 8.05, falls under a pitcher faking a throw to first. For an explicit statement, it can only be found in interpretation manuals. You can excuse the pitcher throwing to F3 when he's away from a base as long as he is close enough to legitimately make a play on the runner. How close is close enough is purely the judgement of the umpire.

Faking a throw to 1st.. he threw the ball, How about he didnt throw the ball directly to 1st, try that one?.

[mbrown2097]

Looks to me like he stepped towards home and threw to first. (from the 3b angle)

[Jimurray]

For educational purposes, here's what FED and NCAA say about this:

FED

6.2.4 SITUATION J

With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, he realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in his normal defensive position. F1 completes the throw without interruption. The coach of the defensive team wants a balk called on F1.

RULING: As long as F3 is in the proximity of the base, F1 would not be guilty of a balk. Proximity is umpire judgment and is based on whether the fielder is close enough to the base to legitimately make a play on the runner.

NCAA

NCAA A.R. -9.3.c.1 If the pitcher throws to the first baseman who is playing off the base, a balk shall not be called if the fielder moves toward first base in an attempt to retire the runner.

[johnnyg08]

I appreciate that help.

We're in a shockingly bad situation. Rules shouldn't be in the interpretation manuals. Rules should be in the rulebook. If there's an error in the rulebook, then we she fix the rulebook. If the rulebook doesn't have an error, then maybe the interpretation has an error, and we should fix that.

Look at the Armbrister play. It should be obvious that there should be a single source for rules.

Basically, I think being anything BUT only a rulebook umpire is doing it wrong.

Many good points. But through experience and by listening to the right people on here, we learn how to call these plays based on how the rules are written.

Let's go back to the third or so post of this thread...this is a balk b/c you have to throw to first base.

Let's say F3 is not at the base at all...if the throw is to the base, we don't have a balk.

[Guest]

Looks to me like he stepped towards home and threw to first. (from the 3b angle)

That was not the balk called. If that was what was called, the manager would have been ejected right away for leaving the dugout to argue a step balk. See the WBC ejection of the German manager in the first Canada - Germany game.

This balk, in 8.05, falls under a pitcher faking a throw to first. For an explicit statement, it can only be found in interpretation manuals. You can excuse the pitcher throwing to F3 when he's away from a base as long as he is close enough to legitimately make a play on the runner. How close is close enough is purely the judgement of the umpire.

Faking a throw to 1st.. he threw the ball, How about he didnt throw the ball directly to 1st, try that one?.

Try which one? You know as well as I do that there is no "it is a balk when...the pitcher does not throw the ball directly to first base." in 8.05.

If F3 is judged not close enough to 1B to make a play on the runner at 1B, then the pitcher has not completed a throw to first base. Which could also be described as feinting a throw to 1B. Either way, it is a violation of 8.05b. Which is the "faking a throw to 1B" rule. At best, your argument is that my articulation was incorrect.

[Haid D' Salaami]

Looks to me like he stepped towards home and threw to first. (from the 3b angle)

That was not the balk called. If that was what was called, the manager would have been ejected right away for leaving the dugout to argue a step balk. See the WBC ejection of the German manager in the first Canada - Germany game.

This balk, in 8.05, falls under a pitcher faking a throw to first. For an explicit statement, it can only be found in interpretation manuals. You can excuse the pitcher throwing to F3 when he's away from a base as long as he is close enough to legitimately make a play on the runner. How close is close enough is purely the judgement of the umpire.

Faking a throw to 1st.. he threw the ball, How about he didnt throw the ball directly to 1st, try that one?.

Try which one? You know as well as I do that there is no "it is a balk when...the pitcher does not throw the ball directly to first base." in 8.05.

If F3 is judged not close enough to 1B to make a play on the runner at 1B, then the pitcher has not completed a throw to first base. Which could also be described as feinting a throw to 1B. Either way, it is a violation of 8.05b. Which is the "faking a throw to 1B" rule. At best, your argument is that my articulation was incorrect.

But you said it was called for a feint to 1st....

[grayhawk]

Jim Evans Balk video allows throws not exactly to 1B if you think a play is being made.

PBUC and Jim Evans require a throw directly to 1B if no obvious play is on.

Wendlestdet's 2010 WUM says in play P153: R1, no out, 2-1 count. The pitcher, in the Set Position, steps to 1B, and (a) seeing the first baseman playing back, does not complete his throw. ( B) throws to the first baseman playing well to the left of the 1B bag. © throws to the first baseman playing weel in front of the 1B bag. (d)throws to the first baseman, initially playing well behind the 1B bag, but makes catch while making a play on R1 back into 1B. (e) throws to and beyond the 1B bag when the first baseman is not near the bag to make the play.

Paraphrasing the WUM: (a)(b)and © are balks.

(d) is not a balk if the umpire believes the throw is to 1B.

(e) is not a balk.

Evans video demos seem to allow more leeway in where the throw is caught.

This is the most relevant post in this thread - not sure why it wasn't discussed more. This call is made through interpretation, and what you call largely depends on whose interpretation you follow. In the case of the OP, I believe it's a balk under all interpretations, and not because the throw wasn't in the vicinty of the 1B bag. The key element here is that F3 was not making a play - he was merely reacting to F1's throw over to him. What we want to see here is some move by F3, prior to the throw, that shows he was making a play. Neither proximity to the bag, nor how close the play was, according to Evans, are relevant. He states this clearly in his video. Looks like Wendelstedt wants to be convinced that the throw was to 1B for the "play" to be on.

[mstaylor]

Interpretations are rules. There is no way to legislate every possible baseball play so we have interps, some are even completely contrary to the rulebook. Because of the way baseball works it is very difficult to change rules. There is no approval process to add an interp. NFHS writes and corrects it's rulebooks every year, but they still produce a casebook to interpret the rulebook.

[basejester]

Interpretations are rules.

Will the league president ever uphold a protest made because an umpire didn't follow an interpretation?

It's a loaded question, but is there any history on this?

[noumpere]

Interpretations are rules.

Will the league president ever uphold a protest made because an umpire didn't follow an interpretation?

It's a loaded question, but is there any history on this?

There is history on the opposite of denying a protest because an umpire did follow an interpretation.