Pick off attempt

[noumpere]

You guys can talk about balks all day long.

 

I see an ejection here.

 

This pitcher knew exactly what he was doing.

 

Pinpoint control right where it hurts.

You could have both you know and I think that would be Maven's point.

 

But if the pitcher is not throwing to a fielder and I guess if he is throwing toward the fence / dugout / out of play line then I don't really care that the throw wasn't directly to the base. And I recognize that you all could probably come up with an exception to that given my poor wording.

[grayhawk]

 

Not according to Jim Evans in his balk video.  He shows an example with F3 well off the base, but breaking and F3 is still 10+ feet from the base when he catches it.  So there are 2 ways to make it legal:

 

1.  Throw to the base

2.  Umpire judges that a play was being made to retire R1

 

They are mutually exclusive.

OK, first of all, you don't mean that they're mutually exclusive. If they were, it would be impossible to make a play on R1 while F3 is on 1B, which is silly.

 

Second, my understanding is consistent with the Evans video (IIRC your report of "10+ feet from the base" is an exaggeration, but no matter). The point is that being in a position to make a play on R1 going back into 1b JUST IS what it means to throw "to the base." That's the guideline. They're not inconsistent or different: one is a rule of thumb to help us interpret the other.

 

The point of the play in the Evans video is that F3 does not have to be on the base to receive the throw: the defense can have a set play where the ball is thrown to the base and F3 moves there to catch it and make a play.

 

So I think we agree. In any case, nothing in the rule permits a throw to a fielder away from the base, so this has to be interp and not rule. It makes more sense if it's interpreting the actual provision that governs throws to 1B.

 

 

Yes, meant not mutually exclusive. 

 

Also, I really wasn't exaggerating.  F3 was well off the base and just before F1 throws, F3 breaks but had only made it a few feet when he received the throw.  There's no way anyone would consider that throw to be "to the base."  He also then says "the fact that the play isn't close is irrelevant."

 

If the umpire's judgement is that there was a play on, then it's not a balk even if the throw isn't near the base.  According to Evans, anyway.

[sdix00]

 

[grayhawk]

dix, can you make a GIF of the one where F1 throws to F3 off the bag?

[sdix00]

I was having a hard time finding it. Do you know which # it is?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

[grayhawk]

I don't think it's in the quiz.  Look 25:51 into the video.

 

He also says, "If, in your judgement, a play was in the works, then it is not a balk."

 

@maven:  I do think we are saying much the same thing, except that your stance seems to be that "a play was in the works" means that the throw was "to the base" whereas I just stop at "a play was in the works" as justification to rule it as a legal move.

 

I have just seen some folks use distance to the bag as the determining factor, without considering that a play was on, in the judgement of the umpire.  What doesn't fit Evans' interpretation is if someone said, "Yes, a play was definitely on, but the throw wasn't close enough to the bag, so it's a balk."