Balk or No?

[flastyle727]

FED Rules.....

 

R1 and R2 attempt to advance on a 3-2 count w/ 2 outs. The Pitcher steps and throws to F5, he did not step off. He had not commited to the plate as he was still in his SET position. The runners started moving to early, the pitcher had not commited to the plate, F5 tagged R2 in a run down.

 

HC came out to ask why this is not a BALK and my explanation was short. "Coach the pitcher had not commited to the plate and is allowed to step toward an unoccupied base in an effort to drive back a runner or make a play."

 

He says "He can not throw to an unoccupied base w/out stepping off."

 

I say "Coach he can if a play is going to be made or to drive back a runner attempting to advance."

 

HC " I think you missed that one."

 

I say " I didn't miss it, let's play on." As I turn to head out to my "between inning  safe place :)" The HC in his infinite wisdom says "Don't worry blue I know it's summer ball, maybe you quit reading during the summer"

 

I stop and look back and he says loudly, "Yea I said it, you need to read a rule book". To which I respond with "Have a good night coach, followed by BOOM!."
 

 

I am quite sure I got the call right, what say you all.....

[Stan W.]

right on the call.......

 

right on the ejection........

[Mike Prince]

Good call and a better EJ.

[grayhawk]

Nailed both. Great job!

I especially like that you used rule book terminology to explain your call.

[spiritump]

a RAT does not know a rule----must be summer ball 

[MPLSMatt]

Great job and a very common misconception.  I hope he spent his time in the parking lot looking up this rule, but I'm sure he didn't.  

[cearle23]

Had a similar situation the other night.... R1 took off from first and RHP steps with his left foot towards second to throw from the set position, never stepped off with his pivot foot, had not committed to the plate yet.  He did step directly toward second with his left foot, however I balked the pitcher for not stepping off, got no argument from anyone, however I am looking for a little reassurance that that was the correct call.  

 

Reading this post has me questioning the call a bit, as he was throwing to an unoccupied base to drive the runner back, however the step to second as opposed to third is different... let me know what you guys think....    

[grayhawk]

Had a similar situation the other night.... R1 took off from first and RHP steps with his left foot towards second to throw from the set position, never stepped off with his pivot foot, had not committed to the plate yet.  He did step directly toward second with his left foot, however I balked the pitcher for not stepping off, got no argument from anyone, however I am looking for a little reassurance that that was the correct call.  

 

Reading this post has me questioning the call a bit, as he was throwing to an unoccupied base to drive the runner back, however the step to second as opposed to third is different... let me know what you guys think....    

 

Legal move.  He can step and throw to a base to make a play.  No need to step off.

[bam]

 

Had a similar situation the other night.... R1 took off from first and RHP steps with his left foot towards second to throw from the set position, never stepped off with his pivot foot, had not committed to the plate yet.  He did step directly toward second with his left foot, however I balked the pitcher for not stepping off, got no argument from anyone, however I am looking for a little reassurance that that was the correct call.  

 

Reading this post has me questioning the call a bit, as he was throwing to an unoccupied base to drive the runner back, however the step to second as opposed to third is different... let me know what you guys think....    

 

Legal move.  He can step and throw to a base to make a play.  No need to step off.

 

Ah.  But what if the runner is not going?  Runner takes a step, everyone yells "GOING" but he doesn't go.  Pitcher still throws to 2d.  I've heard different interpretations on that one, but I'm inclined to NOT balk that one, as it's "making a play".  But I could be persuaded otherwise. 

[alex7]

NFHS says a bluff to a base is good enough to merit a pitcher throw to that unoccupied base.

[cearle23]

This particular game was under NFHS rules.  Had he not gotten his non-pivot foot around to step directly towards second would you have been inclined to call the balk?  Thanks for the knowledge, I'll know for next time...

[grayhawk]

 

 

Had a similar situation the other night.... R1 took off from first and RHP steps with his left foot towards second to throw from the set position, never stepped off with his pivot foot, had not committed to the plate yet.  He did step directly toward second with his left foot, however I balked the pitcher for not stepping off, got no argument from anyone, however I am looking for a little reassurance that that was the correct call.  

 

Reading this post has me questioning the call a bit, as he was throwing to an unoccupied base to drive the runner back, however the step to second as opposed to third is different... let me know what you guys think....    

 

Legal move.  He can step and throw to a base to make a play.  No need to step off.

 

Ah.  But what if the runner is not going?  Runner takes a step, everyone yells "GOING" but he doesn't go.  Pitcher still throws to 2d.  I've heard different interpretations on that one, but I'm inclined to NOT balk that one, as it's "making a play".  But I could be persuaded otherwise. 

 

 

Well, he did say "runner took off from first" so it would not be a balk under any rule set.  Fed gives more leeway to the pitcher if the runner just bluffs.  OBR is more strict.

 

From the WUM, page 125:  If a runner were to take a few steps towards his next base and then stop, and the pitcher were to throw (or feint) to the unoccupied base, this may not be considered a legitimate attempt at making a play, and a balk.  If the runner were to steal the next base, and the pitcher were to then step and throw to the unoccupied base to which he is advancing, no balk would be called.  This is regardless as to the runner actually continues to the base he was advancing to, and will not be called a balk even if the runner returns to his original base.

 

So, it is up to the judgement of the umpires as to whether or not F1 is making a play in OBR.  A bluff is enough in Fed.

[grayhawk]

This particular game was under NFHS rules.  Had he not gotten his non-pivot foot around to step directly towards second would you have been inclined to call the balk?  Thanks for the knowledge, I'll know for next time...

 

Yes.  He must step to the base before the throw, so it would be a garden variety "no step" balk if his free foot stepped more towards third when throwing to second.

[maven]

Regarding whether a "bluff is enough" in FED: the rule states that F1 may throw to an unoccupied base to make a play or drive back a runner. It does not specifically permit F1 to throw because a runner bluffed. The umpires must judge whether the throw actually drove back the runner: a runner taking a stutter step but not really moving more than that is probably not being driven back by the throw to the advance base.

[noumpere]

there is judgement of course but case 6-2-4 A part (b) indicates its a balk if R1 has not "feinted an advance to second"

 

Please please do not make fed try to give a specific definition of that term. lol.

[Mudder]

I know the rule, but why else would a pitcher throw to an unoccupied base from the rubber, if not to get a stealing runner?

[maven]

there is judgement of course but case 6-2-4 A part (b) indicates its a balk if R1 has not "feinted an advance to second" Please please do not make fed try to give a specific definition of that term. lol.

Agree: lol. ;)

[maven]

I know the rule, but why else would a pitcher throw to an unoccupied base from the rubber, if not to get a stealing runner?

He might do it to prevent a runner from trying to steal.

[MPLSMatt]

I know the rule, but why else would a pitcher throw to an unoccupied base from the rubber, if not to get a stealing runner?

 

I balked a guy for this last year.  9th grade game (or so), as I recall the pitcher was getting roughed up and in melt down mode.  There had been a merry go round on the bases.  Pitcher thought someone was on second but he'd actually advanced to third on the previous play.  He threw to 2nd (from the mound) with no one there and no one advancing.  "Time, that's a balk." 

 

 

Had a similar situation the other night.... R1 took off from first and RHP steps with his left foot towards second to throw from the set position, never stepped off with his pivot foot, had not committed to the plate yet.  He did step directly toward second with his left foot, however I balked the pitcher for not stepping off, got no argument from anyone, however I am looking for a little reassurance that that was the correct call.  

 

Reading this post has me questioning the call a bit, as he was throwing to an unoccupied base to drive the runner back, however the step to second as opposed to third is different... let me know what you guys think....    

 

Try not to judge by whether you hear anything.  On this particular situation at many levels, you'll hear less if getting the call wrong (and balking) then you will if you get it right (not balking and everyone freaks out).  When a runner leaves and a pitcher is still set, oodles of coaches will yell "step off, Billy!"  when the reality is that Billy can step directly toward second and make the throw.  Big time baseball myth on this one. 

[zoops]

I had a similar play to the OP happen in a high school game this spring and called it correctly.  Coach would not believe me (although didn't go far enough to EJ) and even talked to the crew at their next game about how I screwed up...apparently they don't have the common sense to go look in a rule book.  Bad part was one of the umpires he talked to agreed with him.  I fixed that situation, but in talking about the situation to many other umpires, I was shocked how many thought it was a balk.  Had to look it up and show some of them to get them to change their minds.

[grayhawk]

Not all baseball rules myths are perpetuated by coaches and fans...

[blue23ll]

Great call, correct application of the rule. Here's my 2 cents on the discussion with the coach. This is a warning, I don't agree that this EJ and coach discussion was handled correctly. In my opinion it went on too long, you give an explanation once, then move away. I also feel the ejection could have been prevented.

 

HC " I think you missed that one."

 

I say  NOTHING

 

I say nothing for several reasons. 1) I don't care what the coach thinks about anything, particularly the quality of the call. They don't know caca from shoe shine about what we do, mostly. 2) If you respond, you are letting the coach control the conversation. 

 

Too many of us think we have to get the last word in on any argument. Don't fall into that trap. In this case, the coach was giving you his opinion, OF COURSE you disagree with him and he knows it, he was baiting you. Don't fall for the trap. By replying " I didn't miss it, let's play on", you invited further discussion and defeated the purpose of keeping the game on track.

[flastyle727]

I can agree with the response. It was the ferocity of which he said it and the fact that he was still near the mound waking towards me that influenced my reply.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 4 Beta