Fake to 3rd question

[mikecw_1968]

I did a search for this specific play but I couldn't find one.

 

Runner on 2nd.  If that runner takes off for 3rd, the pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play.  However, if R2 breaks for 3rd...the pitcher, while on the rubber, steps to 3rd to make a play...R2 stops and goes back to 2nd...the pitcher doesn't throw to 3rd because R2 went back.

 

Is this considered a fake throw to 3rd and hence a balk?  My gut and common sense tells me that it is not a balk because R2 caused the pitcher to not throw to 3rd by going back to 2nd.

[noumpere]

I think the thread has already mutated.  Let me try to get it back.

 

BEFORE the rule change on feinting to third, if R2 was attempting to advance, then throwing or feinting to third would have been legal.  If R2 was only bluffing an advance, then a feint or throw to third would have been a balk. (Above for OBR only because that's where the rule change was; FED is slightly different but lets try to not muddy the waters.)

 

There can't be much argument about that (I hope).

 

So, now AFTER the rule change, it's clearly STILL going to be a balk if R2 is only bluffing an advance.

 

That leave only AFTER the rule change and R2 is attempting an advance.  And, since no rule prohibits F1 from throwing to third to make a play, that part is still legal.

 

Now were left with AFTER the rule change, R2 attempting an advance, F1 feints to third.

 

Again, I hope there cant be much argument yet about all that.

 

So, my opinion on the only open question:  By rule, its a balk.  There's no exception made for feinting to third if R2 is attempting an advance.  Maybe there should be.  Likely the rules makers didn't think of it.  Maybe they will add such an interp.  But, until they do, I have a balk.

[maven]

So, my opinion on the only open question:  By rule, its a balk.  There's no exception made for feinting to third if R2 is attempting an advance.  Maybe there should be.  Likely the rules makers didn't think of it.  Maybe they will add such an interp.  But, until they do, I have a balk.

 

I agree with this. Feinting to 1B is always illegal. 3B is the new 1B. Thus, feinting to 3B is always illegal.

 

8.05(d) permits throwing or feinting to a base for the purpose of making a play, provided the feint is not otherwise illegal. For R1 attempting to advance, for example, it is legal to feint to 2B in order to drive him back. Since feinting to 2B is otherwise legal, 8.05(d) allows it in this case. That would not apply to feinting to 3B, which is always illegal.

 

When 8.05(d) was written, throwing and feinting were both allowed at both 2B and 3B. 8.05(d) was not altered after the rule change prohibiting a feint to 3B, so we should not interpret it as creating a special permission to feint to 3B.

[mikecw_1968]

Here's what I'm getting.

 

If R2 breaks for 3rd, the pitcher steps to make the throw to 3rd but stops because R2 stopped and retreated, that's a balk.  But if R2 breaks for 3rd, stops, and the pitcher doesn't complete the throw to 3rd because he tries to get R2 out by a) running at R2 or b) throwing to 2nd, it's not a balk because he's making a "play".  That is, of course, if we consider the act of running at R2 or throwing to 2nd after not completing the throw to 3rd, a "play".

 

In this situation, it seems like we need a definition of a play to reconcile 8.05b and 8.05d.

[maven]

If R2 breaks for 3rd, the pitcher steps to make the throw to 3rd but stops because R2 stopped and retreated, that's a balk.  But if R2 breaks for 3rd, stops, and the pitcher doesn't complete the throw to 3rd because he tries to get R2 out by a) running at R2 or b) throwing to 2nd, it's not a balk because he's making a "play".  That is, of course, if we consider the act of running at R2 or throwing to 2nd after not completing the throw to 3rd, a "play".

 

That's not correct. If F1 steps to 3B, he MUST throw to 3B. If he steps to 2B, he may throw or feint to 2B. These apply in every situation, whether the base is occupied or not.

 

If the base is not occupied, then the umpire must judge whether the move was for the purpose of making a play.

[ricka56]

So, my opinion on the only open question:  By rule, its a balk.  There's no exception made for feinting to third if R2 is attempting an advance.  Maybe there should be.  Likely the rules makers didn't think of it.  Maybe they will add such an interp.  But, until they do, I have a balk.

I can understand citing 8.05(b) if you want to call a balk. I can understand citing 8.05(b) if you want to call the heck out of this rule and make everyone else hate this new, unnecessary rule. But I don't think penalizing the OP was the intention of this new rule. The new rule was designed to eliminate the 3/1 pickoff move and they did it in a lazy manner by adding just two words to 8.05(b). And now good rule knowledge umpires think that the OP has to be included.

 

8.05(d) permits throwing or feinting to a base for the purpose of making a play, provided the feint is not otherwise illegal. That would not apply to feinting to 3B, which is always illegal...so we should not interpret it as creating a special permission to feint to 3B.

 

I still contend (and this will be my last time by...maybe...I want to do my part to keep this thread under 15 pages  ) that this was not a feint, it was a play on an advancing runner. But if it is considered a feint then 8.05(d) specifically allows it (not a special permission to violate (b)). There are many examples of poorly worded/potentially conflicting rules. This is the newest one, IMO. Why call a stupid balk, if you have code coverage to not call it. If the OP was not intended to be included in 8.05(b), then you have a legitimate way to not balk it...8.05(d), And I think others should consider using this cover to keep from adding to the 51 ways to ruin a baseball game.  

 

And didn't the U.S. Supreme Court have something to say about feints...

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of plays I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["feint"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the play involved in this OP is not that.

—Justice Potter Stewart

 

done...maybe

[Richvee]

I'm sticking with what I said in post #3. Nobody's letting a F1 step to 1st and not throw even if R1 took off for 2nd. Same way nobody should be letting F1 step and not throw to 3rd. 3rd & 1st are now the same. 

[Rich Ives]

Not liking a rule is not license to try to find a reason to ignore it.

[ricka56]

 

Not liking a rule is not license to try to find a reason to ignore it.

 

I like to think of those rule thingees as suggestions.

[spiritump]

to me if there was a runner on third and the pitcher fainted a throw , then a balk--in the OP the pitcher is making a play on a runner that started on 2nd and was going to third, the only reason the pitcher even looked at third is because of the action of the runner on second. 

[mstaylor]

We are over complicating this. Nobody addressed my question about the same play with a R1. R1 breaks from first, pitcher rolls over to second and either feints or throws, but R1 returns, is it a balk? If the runner didn't make a real attempt, then yes. Same at third, with no rule change. Now with the rule change, even if he makes an attempt, it is a balk. <br /><br />Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2<br /><br />

[mstaylor]

to me if there was a runner on third and the pitcher fainted a throw , then a balk--in the OP the pitcher is making a play on a runner that started on 2nd and was going to third, the only reason the pitcher even looked at third is because of the action of the runner on second. 

Your point?

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

[Replacematt]

I still contend (and this will be my last time by...maybe...I want to do my part to keep this thread under 15 pages  ) that this was not a feint, it was a play on an advancing runner.

 

R1 and R2, and both moving as if it's a double steal, but R1 stops, thinking R2 may return. So, your logic would say that 3rd to 1st is legal here, as the first move is a play, and so is the second. Not buying it.

[Thunderheads]

THERE'S NOT ENOUGH INFO IN THE OP TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS ...........

 

Some say balk for obvious reasons, some say no because of confused and poorly written rule notes ..... so be it......

[ricka56]

Lets forget about the OP for a minute. Everyone has dug in with their own positions. Let me ask:

 

You have a rule that says that a play is definately illegal and another rule that says that the same play is definately legal. Is there a baseball version of the Book of Hoyle that says which rule trumps the other?

[maven]

You have a rule that says that a play is definitely illegal and another rule that says that the same play is definitely legal. Is there a baseball version of the Book of Hoyle that says which rule trumps the other?

 

That's not what the rules are saying.

 

The purpose of 8.05(d) is to ADD a prohibition: throwing or feinting to an unoccupied base is prohibited, as a general rule. That prohibition is a layer ON TOP of existing prohibitions: no feinting to 1B, no feinting to 3B, no throwing or feinting without a step directly to the base, etc. etc. Many things F1 is prohibited from doing.

 

The rule carves out an exception: IF F1 DOES EVERYTHING ELSE CORRECTLY, then he may throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play. He must step directly toward the base and follow all the other prohibitions, but the prohibition in 8.05(d) is suspended when F1 is making a play (that part is umpire judgment).

 

This small exception to the general prohibition in 8.05(d) does NOT suspend all the other restrictions on F1. Or do you think that, because it doesn't mention stepping directly toward the base, that he doesn't have to do that either, as long as he's making a play?

[th3]

I THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO TAKE A POLL NOW AFTER ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION AND SEE HOW MANY THINK THE OP IS  BALK AND HOW MANY DO NOT. I ABSTAIN

[mstaylor]

 

You have a rule that says that a play is definitely illegal and another rule that says that the same play is definitely legal. Is there a baseball version of the Book of Hoyle that says which rule trumps the other?

 

That's not what the rules are saying.

 

The purpose of 8.05(d) is to ADD a prohibition: throwing or feinting to an unoccupied base is prohibited, as a general rule. That prohibition is a layer ON TOP of existing prohibitions: no feinting to 1B, no feinting to 3B, no throwing or feinting without a step directly to the base, etc. etc. Many things F1 is prohibited from doing.

 

The rule carves out an exception: IF F1 DOES EVERYTHING ELSE CORRECTLY, then he may throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play. He must step directly toward the base and follow all the other prohibitions, but the prohibition in 8.05(d) is suspended when F1 is making a play (that part is umpire judgment).

 

This small exception to the general prohibition in 8.05(d) does NOT suspend all the other restrictions on F1. Or do you think that, because it doesn't mention stepping directly toward the base, that he doesn't have to do that either, as long as he's making a play?

 

Maven makes a point, you have to take 8.05 in it's entirety. A feint to third is prohibited for any reason. You can make a throw to third to make a play, but it has to be ruled that the runner was actually advancing. 

[ricka56]

The purpose of 8.05(d) is to ADD a prohibition: throwing or feinting to an unoccupied base is prohibited, as a general rule. That prohibition is a layer ON TOP of existing prohibitions: no feinting to 1B, no feinting to 3B, no throwing or feinting without a step directly to the base, etc. etc. Many things F1 is prohibited from doing.

 

Yes, he has to adhere to all regulations. Breathing is legal, breathing and robbing a bank is not. These rules conflict. No other restrictions conflict (in the OP anyway), so lets not get crazy asking if spitting on the ball could be ignored for some reason.

 

Did F1 throw or feint to an unoccupied base? yes. Did he do so to make a play: yes. When an exception is expressly written, then that exception has to honored. The exception in (d) describes this play to a T. 

 

The (b) rule change was not intended for this play, so why side with that conflcting rule? Why not side with the rule that was intended to apply (d).

 

This small exception to the general prohibition in 8.05(d) does NOT suspend all the other restrictions on F1. Or do you think that, because it doesn't mention stepping directly toward the base, that he doesn't have to do that either, as long as he's making a play?

 

This part of your reply got me thinking of something that I (maybe others) hadn't  thought of. What if in the OP, F1 stepped towards R2, to trap him (like F1s have always been taught to do). If you apply 8.05(b), you have to decide if F1's first step was more towards 2B or 3B (a new mystical 45 degree line). But if you used 8.05(d) it doesn't matter...play on. Balking this play 8.05(b) would lead to lots of trouble.

[ricka56]

 

Maven makes a point, you have to take 8.05 in it's entirety. A feint to third is prohibited for any reason. You can make a throw to third to make a play, but it has to be ruled that the runner was actually advancing. 

 

 

yes, you do have to take 8.05(d) in its entirety, the purpose for the rule. The premise for 8.05(d) is throwing/feinting to an unoccupied base. This play was the purpose for the 8.05(d).  

[Thunderheads]

 

 

Maven makes a point, you have to take 8.05 in it's entirety. A feint to third is prohibited for any reason. You can make a throw to third to make a play, but it has to be ruled that the runner was actually advancing. 

 

 

yes, you do have to take 8.05 in its entirety, the purpose for the rule. The premise for 8.05(d) is: Was F1 in the OP throwing/feinting to an unoccupied base. yes, he was 

 

so now you're saying balk?

[mstaylor]

 

 

Maven makes a point, you have to take 8.05 in it's entirety. A feint to third is prohibited for any reason. You can make a throw to third to make a play, but it has to be ruled that the runner was actually advancing. 

 

 

yes, you do have to take 8.05 in its entirety, the purpose for the rule. The premise for 8.05(d) is: Was F1 in the OP throwing/feinting to an unoccupied base. yes, he was 

 

And is he allowed to feint to third, no. There are no exception to the caveat they added this year. Interestingly enough, I hate the new rule. It was intended to stop the 3-1, which I saw no reason to stop. But in the process they made illegal to feint to third, period. That's what it means, illegal. 

[ricka56]

 

There are no exception to the caveat they added this year. Interestingly enough, I hate the new rule. It was intended to stop the 3-1, which I saw no reason to stop. But in the process they made illegal to feint to third, period. That's what it means, illegal. 

 

 

They made no caveat for (d) either. It was like they were playing the game, "name that tune"...I can name that tune in 3 notes. The MLB version was, I can outlaw that 3-1 pickoff move in 2 words...(b)..."and third". Being word stingy created a conflict in (d) which I doubt they saw.

[Thunderheads]

why doesn't someone email Hunter?  See what they have to say?

[ricka56]

why doesn't someone email Hunter?  See what they have to say?

I am usually always suspicious when someone with a firm opinion asks someone in authority a question like this. On another board we were discussing whether a rule aplication was appropriate or a case of an OOO. 90% of the thread participants thought it was a case of OOO. One of the 10%ers asked JE a "rules gotcha" kind of question and JE gave a rules gotcha answer to support Mr. 10%.

 

My highly couched question would be: If one rule said a play was legal and the other rule says the same play play was illegal. Do you apply the rule that was intended to apply or the one that was not intended to apply? 

 

Given the OP, does 8.05(b) and (d) conflict? And if they do conflict, given the purpose of each rule, (especially the purpose of the revised (b) rule (outlawing the 3-1 move) which rule takes precedent (the one intended or the one not intended)?

[spiritump]

 

to me if there was a runner on third and the pitcher fainted a throw , then a balk--in the OP the pitcher is making a play on a runner that started on 2nd and was going to third, the only reason the pitcher even looked at third is because of the action of the runner on second. 

Your point?

Sent from my C771 using Tapatalk 2

 

No balk