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.

[mstaylor]

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

Because there is no real need to do so. Can you feint to first, no. Can you feint to third, no. There is no conflict, no confusion. Before this year you could feint or throw to third, now you can only throw. There is no exception, no conflict, no applying a rule that existed pre-rule change but wasn't changed to reflect the change. 

[Jocko]

Plain and simple..... Worded so even simple minded @JaxRolo can understand

IF IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 1B, IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 3B

Lock the damn thread

[Jocko]

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.I think they alleviated any confusion by wording it the way they did. I really am having a very hard time understanding how you guys don't get it. This is simple. As easy as a force play. Cmon fellas.

KEEP

IT

SIMPLE

STUPID

The ol K.I.S.S. method

Edited October 9, 2013 by Jocko

[th3]

I think call jax stupid crosses the line

[Jocko]

@th3- big diff between simple minded and stupid. And jax knows when he sees it. No emoticon needed.

[JaxRolo]

Plain and simple..... Worded so even simple minded @JaxRolo can understandu IF IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 1B, IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 3B Lock the damn thread

Can you cite a rule? Or is this just common sense? Did you phone a friend?

[Jocko]

Plain and simple..... Worded so even simple minded @JaxRolo can understandu IF IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 1B, IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 3B Lock the damn thread

Can you cite a rule? Or is this just common sense? Did you phone a friend?you know damn well I have Sam Holbrook on speed dial for rules & interp questions. He took my call between pitches in the DS and said those exact words (sans the Jaxrolo. He doesn't know you exist )

[mstaylor]

 

Plain and simple..... Worded so even simple minded @JaxRolo can understandu IF IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 1B, IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 3B Lock the damn thread

Can you cite a rule? Or is this just common sense? Did you phone a friend?

 

Black letter , no need for an interp. 

[Jocko]

:fire: :smachhead:

[ricka56]

Plain and simple.....

IF IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 1B, IT'S A BALK TO DO IT TO 3B

Lock the damn thread

Why would any F1 throw/feint to an unoccupied 1B? I guess he could, but it wouldn't be to make a play.

 

Keep the darnded thread free... 8.05(d)

[ricka56]

Don’t hold me to names/details, but there is a baseball story about an R1, who after B fouled a pitch off. Took his lead from 1B within one step of 2B (at the time there wasn’t any rule against it) and on the next pitch, R1 took that one step and became R2. Soon after OBR 5.09(e) came into affect.

 

Baseball was conceived as a simple game. Over time, players have found creative ways to cheat that simple game. The rules makers had to add rules to keep up with the potential cheats. Each rule has reason for it to be there. 8.05(b) has a reason to be there...to keep F1 from unfairly keeping R1 (and now R3) close to the base to unfairly prevent R1 from stealing 2B. That is the purpose of that rule.   8.05(d) has a purpose too, to keep F1 from unfairly deceiving runners by throwing to an unoccupied base. And 8.05(d) had a purposeful exception to it, to fairly allow F1 to get an out when runners screw up.

 

Just because the reason that (b) has grown shouldn’t impact another perfectly reasonable rule (d). Understand why the rules are there and you can properly apply them correctly.

[Jocko]

@ricka56 - I believe you must be a blues man. You sure like Muddy Waters.

[ricka56]

"There are none so blind as those that will not see"

•  Edmund Burke

[Platejob29]

I've got a balk. Just because the runner was making an advance towards 3rd doesn't change the feint rule nor does a feint constitute a play on an advancing runner. Think of it this way if the runner was on 3rd instead of 2nd and he made a move for home and the pitcher stopped his motion to home it would be a balk all day every day.

[ricka56]

Think of it this way if the runner was on 3rd instead of 2nd and he made a move for home and the pitcher stopped his motion to home it would be a balk all day every day.

 

That is the most analogous example yet offered and it is a good example of where rules could possibly conflict, 8.05(a) and (d). I'll bet at some point in history, someone tried to use the (d) exception to justify no balk in your example. But official interps (whether written or in practice) deemed that (a) took precedence over (d). I think there is good reason for (a) to override (d) in your example (every day/every year), but I don't think there is good reason for (b) to override (d) in the OP. Be careful using one rule/reason to justify a using a different rule/reason. 

 

I wonder if there has been an MLB example of the OP this year. Its not like the OP is a third world play. If you think that (b) applies in the OP, then you have to call it anytime F1 steps more towards 3B than he does 2B (a new mystical 45 dgree line). I'll be willing to bet @Platejob29's game fee that there was a MLB case this year where F1 stepped towards a hung-up R2 to make a play and no one even thought about invoking (b). And if there was a balk called on such a play, we'd all be talking about it. I wonder if opinions would be the same if that balk happened before the OP was conceived.

 

For the OP, all I see are unofficial interps to give (b) precedence over (d). I don't undertand why we should give precedence to an unintended conflicting rule over an intended one. I will accept an official interp that says that (b) takes precedence over (d) exception. Other than that all we have on this thread is internet umpires arguing, and we should all know what that's worth.

[mikecw_1968]

After all the discussion, it seems like most people go with a balk.  I am in the minority.  At the very least, I agree with ricka56 in that there is a conflict with 8.05(b) and (d).  If we're unsure, can we use the 8.05 Comment that says:

 

"Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent†of the pitcher should govern."

 

I don't think the pitcher "intends" to decieve the runner if R2 breaks for 3rd and he steps to 3rd but doesn't throw because he is making, or thinks he needs to, make a play.

[mstaylor]

After all the discussion, it seems like most people go with a balk.  I am in the minority.  At the very least, I agree with ricka56 in that there is a conflict with 8.05(b) and (d).  If we're unsure, can we use the 8.05 Comment that says:

 

"Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent†of the pitcher should govern."

 

I don't think the pitcher "intends" to decieve the runner if R2 breaks for 3rd and he steps to 3rd but doesn't throw because he is making, or thinks he needs to, make a play.

You could use it but I think incorrectly. That is a comment as a tiebreaker to call a balk, not to not call a balk. 

[ricka56]

 

You could use it but I think incorrectly. That is a comment as a tiebreaker to call a balk, not to not call a balk. 

 

huh? Are you sayng that you only use that comment to justify a balk. There is no other side of the "if" ?

[maven]

 

You could use it but I think incorrectly. That is a comment as a tiebreaker to call a balk, not to not call a balk.

huh? Are you sayng that you only use that comment to justify a balk. There is no other side of the "if" ?

 

He's saying that in most cases, umpires have no doubt whether a move is a balk by rule. In such cases, intent is irrelevant.

[ricka56]

 

 

You could use it but I think incorrectly. That is a comment as a tiebreaker to call a balk, not to not call a balk.

huh? Are you sayng that you only use that comment to justify a balk. There is no other side of the "if" ?

 

He's saying that in most cases, umpires have no doubt whether a move is a balk by rule. In such cases, intent is irrelevant.

 

OK, I agree. Suspend knowledge of (b) for one minute. Is there any doubt that F1 feinted a throw to an unoccupied base to make a play (d). There is no doubt of that either. We have conflicting rules here.  

 

I know it's hard to do when one has already decided precedence, but can anyone read (b) and (d) and not concede that there is a possible rule conflict here? If you can concede there is a conflict here, maybe you can see that intent may be the proper deciding factor.

[mstaylor]

 

 

 

You could use it but I think incorrectly. That is a comment as a tiebreaker to call a balk, not to not call a balk.

huh? Are you sayng that you only use that comment to justify a balk. There is no other side of the "if" ?

 

He's saying that in most cases, umpires have no doubt whether a move is a balk by rule. In such cases, intent is irrelevant.

 

OK, I agree. Suspend knowledge of (b) for one minute. Is there any doubt that F1 feinted a throw to an unoccupied base to make a play (d). There is no doubt of that either. We have conflicting rules here.  

 

I know it's hard to do when one has already decided precedence, but can anyone read (b) and (d) and not concede that there is a possible rule conflict here? If you can concede there is a conflict here, maybe you can see that intent may be the proper deciding factor.

 

No, I do not concede there is a conflict. If a runner broke you could throw to the base to make a play. If the runner stops then the umpire has to decide if it was a legitimate attempt, if not then balk. If yes then no balk. Now introduce the rule change, no feint to third, he can now only throw to third to make a play.

As to the comment added to 8.05. As umpires we know what a violation is, if we aren't sure, then we can use the comment to call the balk. I guess you can use lack of intent to not call a balk but I've never used it that way.  

[ricka56]

No, I do not concede there is a conflict. If a runner broke you could throw to the base to make a play. If the runner stops then the umpire has to decide if it was a legitimate attempt, if not then balk. If yes then no balk.

Of course an umpire has to decide if a throw to an unoccupied base is a legitimate play or not. But for the sake of eliminating variables, I have the OP as a legitiamte attempt to make a play. We shouldn't "muddy the waters"   with extra variables. If the OP was given as a legitimate play by F1 to an unoccupied base, do you still deny a rule conflict?   

[maven]

No, I do not concede there is a conflict. If a runner broke you could throw to the base to make a play. If the runner stops then the umpire has to decide if it was a legitimate attempt, if not then balk. If yes then no balk. Now introduce the rule change, no feint to third, he can now only throw to third to make a play.

Exactly. A basic principle of interpretation is to impute a contradiction or conflict only as a last resort. ANY plausible interpretation that makes the rules cohere is superior to any interpretation that imputes a contradiction.

[ricka56]

 

No, I do not concede there is a conflict. If a runner broke you could throw to the base to make a play. If the runner stops then the umpire has to decide if it was a legitimate attempt, if not then balk. If yes then no balk. Now introduce the rule change, no feint to third, he can now only throw to third to make a play.

Exactly. A basic principle of interpretation is to impute a contradiction or conflict only as a last resort. ANY plausible interpretation that makes the rules cohere is superior to any interpretation that imputes a contradiction.

 

I don't know anything about any established principles of interpretation, but it would seem that any interpretation that adheres to one's pre-existing bias should not be given the any more credence of plausibility than any other interpretation. I think my interp is as plausible more plausible (but I will admit, as biased) as your's. This was a play on a runner (d), not a feint to 3B (b).

 

I don't think this is going to be settled here on an internet umpire bulletin board. I look forward to an MLB umpire balking F1 on a hung-up R2 and see what shakes out.

 

Lock the damn thread

[mstaylor]

 

No, I do not concede there is a conflict. If a runner broke you could throw to the base to make a play. If the runner stops then the umpire has to decide if it was a legitimate attempt, if not then balk. If yes then no balk.

Of course an umpire has to decide if a throw to an unoccupied base is a legitimate play or not. But for the sake of eliminating variables, I have the OP as a legitiamte attempt to make a play. We shouldn't "muddy the waters"   with extra variables. If the OP was given as a legitimate play by F1 to an unoccupied base, do you still deny a rule conflict?   

 

Yes. Did he throw, yes, no balk;no, balk. It is that simple.