Balk - Throwing to an uncovered first base

[Jimurray]

Hickox explains call:

"http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-22/sports/chi-soxs-pickoff-play-results-in-venturas-ejection-20120922_1_jose-quintana-pickoff-first-base"

Konerko's deke was too good. I would still argue that the ball was thrown to 1B from one of the 3B views on the video. That arguement will get me nowhere.

[Replacematt]

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;

--

I'm trying to figure out how you simultaneously missed and understood my point.

[basejester]

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.

It really can't be described as a feint without butchering the meaning of the word. The interpretations don't follow from the rule.

If the pitcher feints a move to first, he's trying to make the runner believe he is throwing to first to set up some other actual action. A feint is a type of deception.

The pitcher isn't trying a sell a throw to first and then . . .SURPRISE! It's REALLY a throw very nearly to first instead. Ha! ha! You have fallen for my trick! Ha! ha!

It's counter-productive in this play for the pitcher to convey to the runner that he is throwing to first. Therefore, he's not making a feint.

[Guest]

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.

It really can't be described as a feint without butchering the meaning of the word. The interpretations don't follow from the rule.

If the pitcher feints a move to first, he's trying to make the runner believe he is throwing to first to set up some other actual action. A feint is a type of deception.

The pitcher isn't trying a sell a throw to first and then . . .SURPRISE! It's REALLY a throw very nearly to first instead. Ha! ha! You have fallen for my trick! Ha! ha!

It's counter-productive in this play for the pitcher to convey to the runner that he is throwing to first. Therefore, he's not making a feint.

What're you looking for? I already said my articulation of this was poor. It's still a balk persuant to 8.05b - the feinting / failing to complete a throw balk - and the subsequent expansion of the concept in 7.5A of the MLBUM.

[Replacematt]

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.

It really can't be described as a feint without butchering the meaning of the word. The interpretations don't follow from the rule.

If the pitcher feints a move to first, he's trying to make the runner believe he is throwing to first to set up some other actual action. A feint is a type of deception.

The pitcher isn't trying a sell a throw to first and then . . .SURPRISE! It's REALLY a throw very nearly to first instead. Ha! ha! You have fallen for my trick! Ha! ha!

It's counter-productive in this play for the pitcher to convey to the runner that he is throwing to first. Therefore, he's not making a feint.

Did he step to first? Yes.

Did he throw to first? No.

Therefore, it is a feint to first--he stepped to first, and did not throw there.

Let's try this to third.

Step to third.

Throw to F5.

Not illegal, because it is not illegal to feint to any occupied base but first.

If the throw went more in the direction of any other base, then you have a balk for throwing to a base without a step.

[Haid D' Salaami]

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.

It really can't be described as a feint without butchering the meaning of the word. The interpretations don't follow from the rule.

If the pitcher feints a move to first, he's trying to make the runner believe he is throwing to first to set up some other actual action. A feint is a type of deception.

The pitcher isn't trying a sell a throw to first and then . . .SURPRISE! It's REALLY a throw very nearly to first instead. Ha! ha! You have fallen for my trick! Ha! ha!

It's counter-productive in this play for the pitcher to convey to the runner that he is throwing to first. Therefore, he's not making a feint.

What're you looking for? I already said my articulation of this was poor. It's still a balk persuant to 8.05b - the feinting / failing to complete a throw balk - and the subsequent expansion of the concept in 7.5A of the MLBUM.

it's not a balk for feinting or falling to complete a throw, the pitcher threw the ball to the 1stbaseman Chris... he didnt throw it closer to 1st.. that is the problem.

[johnnyg08]

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.

It really can't be described as a feint without butchering the meaning of the word. The interpretations don't follow from the rule.

If the pitcher feints a move to first, he's trying to make the runner believe he is throwing to first to set up some other actual action. A feint is a type of deception.

The pitcher isn't trying a sell a throw to first and then . . .SURPRISE! It's REALLY a throw very nearly to first instead. Ha! ha! You have fallen for my trick! Ha! ha!

It's counter-productive in this play for the pitcher to convey to the runner that he is throwing to first. Therefore, he's not making a feint.

I think you're disagreeing for the sole purpose of disagreeing.

[Thunderheads]

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.

It really can't be described as a feint without butchering the meaning of the word. The interpretations don't follow from the rule.

If the pitcher feints a move to first, he's trying to make the runner believe he is throwing to first to set up some other actual action. A feint is a type of deception.

The pitcher isn't trying a sell a throw to first and then . . .SURPRISE! It's REALLY a throw very nearly to first instead. Ha! ha! You have fallen for my trick! Ha! ha!

It's counter-productive in this play for the pitcher to convey to the runner that he is throwing to first. Therefore, he's not making a feint.

I think you're disagreeing for the sole purpose of disagreeing.

+1

[basejester]

Feel free to ignore me.

I think the stuff in the teal region is the difficulty, which isn't defined as legal but also for which there is no defined penalty. Sometimes people argue it has to be a balk if it's not one of the three legal actions in 8.01 and other times people argue only things explicitly in 8.05 are balks. Sometimes it's the same people.

I'm guessing somewhere in the history of the game someone interpreted plays like in the OP as a balk with the first logic and then later someone created the feint argument to rationalize assigning the balk penalty under the second logic.

[johnnyg08]

You post disengaging backward as being legal. Then post disengaging forward as being "teal"

disengaging forward is illegal.

[basejester]

You post disengaging backward as being legal.

Yep

Then post disengaging forward as being "teal"

Yep.

disengaging forward is illegal.

It certainly is. How do you know and what's the penalty?

[johnnyg08]

It certainly is. How do you know and what's the penalty?

Backward is legal (stated in the rules), then forward is illegal. "Coach, the rule states that he's got to step off backward. Your guy disengaged forward, so I have a balk"

You could penalize with a balk, but you might be able to get away with a "don't do that" depending on circumstances.

When we read, have to make inferences. Maybe even a bit of logical reasoning.

[basejester]

Backward is legal (stated in the rules), then forward is illegal. "Coach, the rule states that he's got to step off backward. Your guy disengaged forward, so I have a balk"

You could penalize with a balk, but you might be able to get away with a "don't do that" depending on circumstances.

When we read, have to make inferences. Maybe even a bit of logical reasoning.

Perfectly reasonable.

This thought process leads us to throwing to places other than bases is illegal and also could be a balk. Right?

I think that "all that is not prohibited is allowed" is also perfectly reasonable. But what we have in the interpretations is a mishmash of both thought processes, which is pointlessly inconsistent.
 

[johnnyg08]

"all that is not prohibited is allowed"

I like this line. ^^^^^

To understand the balk rules and their intent, one must understand the history behind the rule. The first base restrictions for pitchers in place in order to encourage offense in the game. If runner are too scared to steal, take too big of a lead, or are getting picked off all of the time, offense struggles.

This is paraphrased from a personal conversation with Jim Evans. Any errors in the italics are my fault and not Jim's.

But once you understand the intent of why the rule is the rule, it becomes easier to understand what the rule books allows or prohibits.

[johnnyg08]

This thought process leads us to throwing to places other than bases is illegal and also could be a balk. Right?

The thought process could lead a person there, but it would be incorrect in many instances.

[mstaylor]

I think that "all that is not prohibited is allowed" is also perfectly reasonable. But what he have in the interpretations is a mishmash of both thought processes, which is pointlessly inconsistent.

Think of interps as Supreme Court rulings. The Constitution is the overview for the country and the SC decides what is constitutional and what isn't, interps are much the same.

[Jocko]

I think that "all that is not prohibited is allowed" is also perfectly reasonable. But what he have in the interpretations is a mishmash of both thought processes, which is pointlessly inconsistent.

Think of interps as Supreme Court rulings. The Constitution is the overview for the country and the SC decides what is constitutional and what isn't, interps are much the same.

well played, Mauer.

[basejester]

[Think of interps as Supreme Court rulings. The Constitution is the overview for the country and the SC decides what is constitutional and what isn't, interps are much the same.

Sure, that's a good analogy. Mostly people on this forum are interested in making a call (as good lower court judges) consistent with the precedent-setting interpretations.

The Supreme Court decides the Federal Government's position on what is Constitional and what isn't, but the contract between the people and the Federal Government is the Constitution. And I'm saying that there's such a thing as a bad interpretation/Supreme Court Ruling.

Calling this sort of play a violation of 8.05 (e) is an absurd rationalization to patch over a problem in the rules. Realizing the rules and the (captial I) Interpretations are outside of our personal control, I dream of a world where the umpires have a clearer ruleset to work with.

[Mr Umpire]

Calling this sort of play a violation of 8.05 (e) is an absurd rationalization to patch over a problem in the rules. Realizing the rules and the (captial I) Interpretations are outside of our personal control, I dream of a world where the umpires have a clearer ruleset to work with.

Not going to happen as long as the umpires don't write the rulebooks. Also, as long as there are too many hands in the pot, not going to happen either.

[mstaylor]

I agree there can be bad interps and bad SC rulings. In this case, I have no problem with the interp or what was called here. All I can say is it is above our pay grade.

Not going to happen as long as the umpires don't write the rulebooks.

I know a guy that was on the rules committee for a couple of years for NFHS. There was a rule that said you had to come set with the ball below your chin. Stupid rule with no basis in baseball logic so he tried to get it changed. He wanted it removed completely using the logic that it was impossible to tell where the ball is in the glove. The end result, they changed it to the whole glove has to be below the chin. Still a dumb rule that has no basis in logic but that's what happens with that many people involved.

[grayhawk]

I agree there can be bad interps and bad SC rulings. In this case, I have no problem with the interp or what was called here. All I can say is it is above our pay grade.

Not going to happen as long as the umpires don't write the rulebooks.

I know a guy that was on the rules committee for a couple of years for NFHS. There was a rule that said you had to come set with the ball below your chin. Stupid rule with no basis in baseball logic so he tried to get it changed. He wanted it removed completely using the logic that it was impossible to tell where the ball is in the glove. The end result, they changed it to the whole glove has to be below the chin. Still a dumb rule that has no basis in logic but that's what happens with that many people involved.

Isn't the rule that any part of the glove has to be at or below the chin, not the whole thing?

[Umpire in Chief]

^^^ Correct.

[mstaylor]

I think that was changed again or that is what it got changed to when he was trying to get rid of it. The point is, it's a dumb rule that shouldn't be there, he tried to dump it but with as many people that are involved with the process, it didn't happen. I honestly don't remember if it was one or two changes but either way, it's a screw up.

[Rich Ives]

Backward is legal (stated in the rules), then forward is illegal. "Coach, the rule states that he's got to step off backward. Your guy disengaged forward, so I have a balk"

You could penalize with a balk, but you might be able to get away with a "don't do that" depending on circumstances.

When we read, have to make inferences. Maybe even a bit of logical reasoning.

Perfectly reasonable.

This thought process leads us to throwing to places other than bases is illegal and also could be a balk. Right?

I think that "all that is not prohibited is allowed" is also perfectly reasonable. But what he have in the interpretations is a mishmash of both thought processes, which is pointlessly inconsistent.

Art thou typikon under a different name?

[basejester]

Art thou typikon under a different name?

No.