Steal of home/balk?

[Jocko]

"Pitcher took one step towards home on the throw"

Without more information, my mind's eye is seeing this as disengaging forward. Doesn't sound like KC thought F1 used normal mechanics. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm envisioning.

where is the requirement to use what you call normal mechanics?  Seems to me that by stepping with his free foot (and I assume that's what he did and not step with the pivot foot) that he met the requirements.  It's like the slide step. Again, I may be seeing this differently. And IMO a slide step is a normal mech. There was obviously something funky or KC wouldn't have asked. Not trying to split hairs with you. You may well be right.

[basejester]

That's your answer.

He may do 1 of 3 things:

1. Deliver to the batter (Pitch)

2. Step and throw to a BASE

3. Step off

Home is a base in OBR. I think throws home from the rubber are legal under 8.01, but this particular instance is not under 7.07 like Semper_Fi pointed out.

[UMP45]

F3 straddling the base, in and of itself, is not necessarilly OBS.

[JaxRolo]

This thread hurts my little brain.

For those that say it is a balk, I don't see why. I believe the rule specifically says "the pitcher drops the ball"

Doesn't look to me like F1 dropped it.

[Jocko]

That's your answer.He may do 1 of 3 things:1. Deliver to the batter (Pitch)2. Step and throw to a BASE3. Step off

Home is a base in OBR. I think throws home from the rubber are legal under 8.01, but this particular instance is not under 7.07 like Semper_Fi pointed out.Throws home from the rubber are legal. They're called pitches. If he doesn't come set before throwing to a base = nothing. If he doesn't come set before he throws home = balk. There's a distinction, however slight. Home is a base, but cannot be occupied and it has its own requirements. No point in arguing semantics. I think KC got his answer.

[Jocko]

It's not a balk. It's CO (Fed) or CI (OBR)

This thread hurts my little brain.For those that say it is a balk, I don't see why. I believe the rule specifically says "the pitcher drops the ball"Doesn't look to me like F1 dropped it.

[JaxRolo]

I have obstruction on this play. Award home and send runner to 1st.

To me it's not clear in the OP when the batter stepped out.

[NFUA_44]

"Pitcher took one step towards home on the throw"

Without more information, my mind's eye is seeing this as disengaging forward. Doesn't sound like KC thought F1 used normal mechanics. I could be wrong, but that's what I'm envisioning.

where is the requirement to use what you call normal mechanics?  Seems to me that by stepping with his free foot (and I assume that's what he did and not step with the pivot foot) that he met the requirements.  It's like the slide step.

 

>Noumpere, why is it a balk if he is engaged and the ballis dropped w/o crossing a foul line? If we were looking at it in a vacuum and not considering F2's action. I may just be crazy in the head trying to understand the FED thought on it.

To stop the pitcher from intentionally dropping the ball getting the runner to leave and then picking up the ball that's still nearby and getting an out.  That's my guess.  Maybe Evans has something in his history of the rules stuff.  But that rule is the same in all codes and I'm not sure what it has to do with this play.

 

I think I got it through my pea little brain what you are getting at.  I'm spending to much time trying to compare it to something instead of looking at it logically in sequence.  No need to reinvent the wheel here.  Thanks to everyone, this has been a kick a$$ thread!

 

Tom

[Rich Ives]

 

So many questions come to mind. The batter stepped out so penalty K. If it's K3 hes out. THEN F2 OBS. Normally we would award 1B, but since batter was out on the pitch :

There's only the strike for steppign out if it was really a pitch so if F2 catches it in front of the plate then give him first.

 

It's like he swings, hits the mitt, misses the ball but F2 catches the pitch.  Strike three is ignored and the CO is enforced.

 

I disagree with the bolded portion. 

 

If F1 starts his motion, B1 steps out with BOTH FEET, and F1 stops his motion.    Charge B1 with a strike.  6-2-4d1

 

 

>>> 

6-2-4d1

If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery

because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with

both feet or (c ) holds up his hand to request “Time,†it shall not be a

balk. In (a) and (c ), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher.

The umpire shall call “Time†and begin play anew. In (b), a strike

shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and (c ), if

the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball

remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the

umpire judges the batter’s action to be a deliberate attempt to create a

balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1o.

 

 

But 7-3-1 requires that the stepping out action delay the game. It doesn't in this play so can you apply the penalty strike?

 

It also has an exception that he can step out if the pitcher or catcher feints or makes a play at any base. Isn't that what's happening

here?

 

 

There should be no penalty strike.

[basejester]

Throws home from the rubber are legal. They're called pitches.

We need a batter for it to be a pitch, right? Hypothetically, if the pitcher engaged while batter was still in the on-deck circle and threw the ball to home, what is that? Would you balk him here, and if so, under what rule? Sorry if this is a stupid question.

If he doesn't come set before throwing to a base = nothing. If he doesn't come set before he throws home = balk. There's a distinction, however slight. Home is a base, but cannot be occupied and it has its own requirements. No point in arguing semantics. I think KC got his answer.

I'm having a hard time with catcher's interference if the batter has already left the the box voluntarily.

What was the definitive answer for OBR?

[Jocko]

Throws home from the rubber are legal. They're called pitches.

We need a batter for it to be a pitch, right?

Not necessarily. If the batter steps out after TOP (which may or may not be the case in the OP), the pitch still exists. And the K zone gets HUGE. In OBR sub-sets with no stepping out restrictions, if batter steps out without Time called and F1 delivers, I'm calling anything catchable by F2 a k.

[basejester]

Not necessarily. If the batter steps out after TOP (which may or may not be the case in the OP), the pitch still exists.

I think this just means that we still have a batter if he steps out, not all throws from the rubber to home are pitches.

[kansascityblue]

 This is where I got lost on my original call. I interpreted Home Plate as a Base, and therefore it was legal for F1 to 'throw' there to make a play. in my OP, (OBR by the way), F1 stepped toward home/base (actually was toward right batter box as the catcher was standing there.)and threw. I didn't even consider CI, since batter had vacated the box. No matter what, I learned a lot on this one. THANKS

That's your answer.

He may do 1 of 3 things:

1. Deliver to the batter (Pitch)

2. Step and throw to a BASE

3. Step off

Home is a base in OBR. I think throws home from the rubber are legal under 8.01, but this particular instance is not under 7.07 like Semper_Fi pointed out. 

[Jocko]

Not necessarily. If the batter steps out after TOP (which may or may not be the case in the OP), the pitch still exists.

I think this just means that we still have a batter if he steps out, not all throws from the rubber to home are pitches.

I'll let someone else take this one.

[bam]

OK - correct thread!

 

Jaksa Roder has the following case in Ch14: "However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter.... (5) completey gives up his opportunity to swing or bat at a pitch. EG: R3, stealing. The batter takes two or three steps backward during the pitch. Catcher's interference is no longer possible.

[Jocko]

OK - correct thread! Jaksa Roder has the following case in Ch14: "However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter.... (5) completey gives up his opportunity to swing or bat at a pitch. EG: R3, stealing. The batter takes two or three steps backward during the pitch. Catcher's interference is no longer possible.

so it's either a balk (on F1) or nothing, per J/R. I'm still in the Balk camp. If F1 delivers home withouut disengaging, it's a pitch. Period. And since KC verified that by his motion it was an attempt to retire the runner and not a legal pitch, I'm balking him. Falls back to an earlier ppost:

1. Step to a base

2. Disengage

3. Pitch

[BalkHawk]

no, no. He is indeed "pitching" even though the catcher receives it like a throw, which the catcher may do without interfering, assumming the batter completely gives up his opportunity to swing or bat at a pitch.

It's not a balk! Not unless the pitcher doesn't come set or hesitates, etc. Plus, its a strike on the batter unless its a wild pitch.

[Jocko]

Another wrinkle. Let's say the batter decides to bunt. We agree it's a pitch. He is completely entitled to take a stab at it. How you gonn call that?

[NFUA_44]

So B1 bails out, CI is no longer possible, it's a pitch, no it's a throw.............wait it's a feint to home!

 

On Edit;

I'm digging into my J/R now.  Back after dinner.

[BalkHawk]

Its not a throw unless he disengaged.

[basejester]

And since KC verified that by his motion it was an attempt to retire the runner and not a legal pitch, I'm balking him.

KC verified he judged it a throw. I don't see where he judged anything illegal about the pitching motion. I don't think we can call a balk just because of the pitcher's intent; we'd have to see something illegal in his motion or in the catcher's actions under 7.07.

[NFUA_44]

So if it's not a throw, and CI is no longer possible, B1 couldn't interfere, it's a pitch that never made it to the plate?

[JaxRolo]

OK - correct thread! Jaksa Roder has the following case in Ch14: "However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter.... (5) completey gives up his opportunity to swing or bat at a pitch. EG: R3, stealing. The batter takes two or three steps backward during the pitch. Catcher's interference is no longer possible.so it's either a balk (on F1) or nothing, per J/R. I'm still in the Balk camp. If F1 delivers home withouut disengaging, it's a pitch. Period. And since KC verified that by his motion it was an attempt to retire the runner and not a legal pitch, I'm balking him. Falls back to an earlier ppost:

1. Step to a base

2. Disengage

3. Pitch

I still don't see a balk. How can you know it's not just a bad pitch?

If he's on the rubber it's a pitch.

[Jocko]

I got him on a start/stop :D

[Jocko]

OK - correct thread! Jaksa Roder has the following case in Ch14: "However, it is not catcher's interference if the batter.... (5) completey gives up his opportunity to swing or bat at a pitch. EG: R3, stealing. The batter takes two or three steps backward during the pitch. Catcher's interference is no longer possible.so it's either a balk (on F1) or nothing, per J/R. I'm still in the Balk camp. If F1 delivers home withouut disengaging, it's a pitch. Period. And since KC verified that by his motion it was an attempt to retire the runner and not a legal pitch, I'm balking him. Falls back to an earlier ppost:1. Step to a base2. Disengage3. Pitch

If he's on the rubber it's a pitch.

^^^^^^^^^^