buchholz balk

[BalkHawk]

Its a cut and dry fake to 1st; a legal spin move but no throw. If you think he stepped anywhere other than to 1st, watch it again.

It makes no difference if a baserunner's feelings are hurt, or if he feels he was deceived. Rather, the question is, was he deceived as defined by the rules.

Any idea that a pitcher can break rule 8.05 in such an obvious manner that the runner wasn't deceived is fallacious.

If you call this booger picking, your face must be covered in boogers. Boogers have crusted over your eyes because you refuse to pick them.

[mstaylor]

I went back and watched it, he definitely tried a jump step and landed beside the rubber. If you do it slow he doesn't look to second until he lands. That means either a jump step to first,balk. Or he tried to go to second, landed short, failure to step to the base he is feinting to, balk. Notice there is nothing in there about any deception, it is a straight procedural balk. 

[noumpere]

but the only thing I had was maybe not clearing the rubber.

Is that a requirement on a step to second?  Isn't distance and direction sufficient even if the step doesn't go past the rubber?

[Mike Prince]

 

but the only thing I had was maybe not clearing the rubber.

Is that a requirement on a step to second?  Isn't distance and direction sufficient even if the step doesn't go past the rubber?

 

If his lead foot doesn't clear where his pivot foot started (front edge of rubber), I don't see this as gaining distance towards 2B.  So if the lead foot doesn't make it at least to the rubber on a step I've got a balk.  Or maybe I am missing something which isn't unusual.

[grayhawk]

 

 

but the only thing I had was maybe not clearing the rubber.

Is that a requirement on a step to second?  Isn't distance and direction sufficient even if the step doesn't go past the rubber?

 

If his lead foot doesn't clear where his pivot foot started (front edge of rubber), I don't see this as gaining distance towards 2B.  So if the lead foot doesn't make it at least to the rubber on a step I've got a balk.  Or maybe I am missing something which isn't unusual.

 

 

Distance isn't defined by where the pivot foot starts, it's defined by the free foot.  The free foot must clear where it started in order to gain distance.  Normally, a pitcher's free foot isn't too far in front of (towards home) the pivot foot, so for practical purposes, the free foot usually ends up crossing the rubber to gain distance.  There's certainly nothing in the rules that state the foot has to land on the 2B side of the rubber for the step to be legal.  Page 125 of the 2011 WUM shows some examples of gaining and not gaining distance and direction, but they are all to first base.  Each example, however, shows the original position of the free foot as a dotted line, and then where the free foot landed in relation to where it started.

[mstaylor]

No, the rules don't mention actually clearing the rubber but anything short of that is closer to third or first. Clear the rubber and you are obviously closer to second. 

[noumpere]

No, the rules don't mention actually clearing the rubber but anything short of that is closer to third or first. Clear the rubber and you are obviously closer to second. 

I think all the "imaginary lines" go to the free foot so a step toward second would be in that quadrant as opposed to the quadrant toward first (and the size of each quadrant is small right by the foot so the foot might end up on the line -- but that's legal)

[afaber12]

The free foot winds up marginally closer to first base after the move compared with where it started. However it gained more distance towards second base, and the direction it moved in was closer to a line towards second base than to first. In my book it meets the criteria of a step to second. Given that there was a runner at second, I don't think you can balk him, at least not for that portion of the move - whether he disengaged the rubber or not, he's allowed to feint to second.

 

There might have been the briefest of moments where everything was stationary, but I'm not convinced. After watching it at normal speed several times I watched it at 1/4 speed, and it actually looked less like there was a stop around the :02 mark and the slower speed than regular to me. If there was a stop in there, it should have been more obvious in slow motion but it wasn't.