Jump to content
  • 0

Fake to 3rd question

mikecw_1968

Asked by mikecw_1968,

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4762 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Question

mikecw_1968

mikecw_1968

Posted
Posted

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.

  • Answers 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Top Posters For This Question

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Thunderheads
Thunderheads

Guys, let's not twist this into a 15 page disertation on the comprehension of the way a rule was written, ok?   Balk ...   "next"?

Richvee
Richvee

Step to 1st or 3rd from the rubber without a throw = balk. I wouldn't think where a runner is would matter. 

maven
maven

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

131 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

@ricka56 it's time to concede.

I am close to conceding. If the HW interp was a 2013 entry, that would be evidence that it was intended for new rule. But that interp could have been written prior to 2013 and it would still be a valid balk call. Is there a date stamp for this entry? 

 

I do look forward to an MLB game when R2 gets himself hung up (like in the OP), F1 then traps him with a good move that is on the 3B side and the umpires balk him. The nashing of teeth, the "no, no, no, that's not what the new rule was for" complaints...I really can't wait. It's always the unintended consequences that bit ya in the arse.

  • 0
Texas Manny

Texas Manny

Posted
Posted

 

@ricka56 it's time to concede.

I am close to conceding. If the HW interp was a 2013 entry, that would be evidence that it was intended for new rule. But that interp could have been written prior to 2013 and it would still be a valid balk call. Is there a date stamp for this entry? 

 

I do look forward to an MLB game when R2 gets himself hung up (like in the OP), F1 then traps him with a good move that is on the 3B side and the umpires balk him. The nashing of teeth, the "no, no, no, that's not what the new rule was for" complaints...I really can't wait. It's always the unintended consequences that bit ya in the arse.

 

That entry is NEW to the 2013 Harry Wendelstedt manual. I have the latest edition, 2013, and is dated such, and the entry has the word in big bold letters NEW!

  • 0
JaxRolo

JaxRolo

Posted
Posted
From HW's manual: P154, pg 209, Reference Plays: R1(stealing), R2(stealing), two outs, 3-2 count. After coming stopped in the Set Position, and anticipating the runners on the move, he steps directly towards third base to make a play on R2. However, when R2 holds up about 3/4 the way to third, he stops, chases towards R2, and gets him in a rundown. Ruling: That is a balk.
Which tells us that a feint is a balk. Period.
  • 0
Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

See post #s 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13........

Can't believe ho long you guys insisted on being wrong. :bang:

  • Like 1
  • 0
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

See post #s 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13........

Can't believe ho long you guys insisted on being wrong. :bang:

I can't believe you could never cite an official interp to back your position. I'm wrong again, I can believe  that.

  • 0
noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

 

 

I do look forward to an MLB game when R2 gets himself hung up (like in the OP), F1 then traps him with a good move that is on the 3B side and the umpires balk him. The nashing of teeth, the "no, no, no, that's not what the new rule was for" complaints...I really can't wait. It's always the unintended consequences that bit ya in the arse.

 

Im not sure anyone really disagrees with that or was arguing that.  we were all just discussing what the rule is.  You were arguing that the rule is wrong and thus shouldn't be enforced as written.  That's completely different.

  • 0
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

 You were arguing that the rule is wrong and thus shouldn't be enforced as written.

 

 

That is unfair and flat wrong...I never said that any rule shouldn't be enforced. I was arguing which rule applied (IMO fair game). Recently there was a thread in which 3 or 4 rules were arguably applicable. There are lots errors in the rules (in the hundreds, I believe) that can cause conflicts. Arguing which rule applies to a play is fair game.

 

Reference my post excerpt #16/ #44

 

 

Why doesn't 8.05(d) apply to the OP?

 

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.

 

  • 0
Jocko

Jocko

Posted
Posted

See post #s 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13........

Can't believe ho long you guys insisted on being wrong. :bang:

I can't believe you could never cite an official interp to back your position. I'm wrong again, I can believe that.This one needs no interp. It's black and white. And I'm not gonna expend effort into proving myself. Like scientific law, I'm right until proven wrong. Not the other way around. And you jackwagons that want to argue every fkn thing bore me to tears. There's a wealth of knowledge and experience on Umpire-Empire. Can be a great tool, if utilized. But instead of listening to what you're told, you argue until YOU'RE proven wrong. Count me out. Can't make a :Horse: drink
  • Like 2
  • 0
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

 

This one needs no interp.

 

 

So, are you saying that HW waisted ink ??? Why did he write it if wasn't needed ?  

 

 

There's a wealth of knowledge and experience on Umpire-Empire. Can be a great tool, if utilized. But instead of listening to what you're told, you argue until YOU'RE proven wrong.

 

You are wrong, I listened to every word...learning the whole way. But yes, I did argue until I was proven wrong...and I won't apologize for that one bit.

  • 0
ricka56

ricka56

Posted
Posted

@ricka56- there's a difference between an interp and a case play.

 

OK...I'm listening...what is the significant difference ? And how is that difference applicable to this OP or thread ?

...really, no sarcasm...I want to know.

  • 0
mstaylor

mstaylor

Posted
Posted

An interp takes the rule and explains how it should be called, or clarifies language. A caseplay is exactly that, a play showing the correct application. Sometimes manuals mix the two together. 

Now. I edited some of the exchange at the end of this thread, the non-responsive portions. For some reason as things slow down on the field, the personal comments to each other increase. This is not an isolated situation, nor directed at just one or two people. I really hate editing posts but non-responsive, snarky or insulting comments are not needed by anybody. They are not needed nor wanted on this board. 

  • 0
Mr Umpire

Mr Umpire

Posted
Posted

Yeah, well it fell short of 15 pages.  Damn, ricka gave up too soon.

 

I wonder if 8.05(d) gets reworded in about another 50 years when they finally agree on another rules change to be made and realize the 2 conflict with each other.  Look how long the "deception" part is still in there.  However, I do find it a little interesting when 3B is being compared to 1B on this.  A runner cannot advance to 1B for a play, only BR.  I think that is where so much of this broke down until the HW interp.  It will be interesting if this comes about in MLB.  How will the argument go or will it just be accepted?

 

Honestly, I'm glad they stopped it.  Not for the MLB level, but for the amateur level.  How many times do we have to see it occur on the same batter before 1 pitch is thrown?

  • 0
Texas Manny

Texas Manny

Posted
Posted

Yeah, well it fell short of 15 pages.  Damn, ricka gave up too soon.

 

I wonder if 8.05(d) gets reworded in about another 50 years when they finally agree on another rules change to be made and realize the 2 conflict with each other.  Look how long the "deception" part is still in there.  However, I do find it a little interesting when 3B is being compared to 1B on this.  A runner cannot advance to 1B for a play, only BR.  I think that is where so much of this broke down until the HW interp.  It will be interesting if this comes about in MLB.  How will the argument go or will it just be accepted?

 

Honestly, I'm glad they stopped it.  Not for the MLB level, but for the amateur level.  How many times do we have to see it occur on the same batter before 1 pitch is thrown?

autofire.gif                                                                                                                                                           faint.gif

  • 0
Scratch Franzeo

Scratch Franzeo

Posted
Posted

So is a fake to third legal as long as you wear a jacket tuck in?

And the PU is only wearing one bag, his hat backward, while holding his <i>clicker</i> in his right hand.

 Share
Go to question listing
×
×
  • Create New...