"He's not holding him on!!"

[ricka56]

I know this is a HS thread, but just wanted to point out that according to Evans, in OBR it doesn't matter if the play was close or not.  As long as the umpire is convinced that a "play is in the works" then no balk should be called.  This means that proximity to the bag, nor the runner is required - just that a legal throw was made and that a play was on.

I once balked a throw to F3 (back...not holding the runner on) who either didn't know a play was on or was VERY late moving on the play. HC disputed the balk call, saying that a pick-off play was on. If it was a pick-off play, the timing/throw was horrible and they fooled me. Maybe Evans can say that proximity is not required, but without it, it sure doesn't look like a play is on.

[Pops]

 

The "close enough to make a play" stuff only applies at 1st base (FED), because that is the only base where a throw MUST be made following a step towards the base.  If the throw is towards the base, it is not a balk no matter where the runner (or F3) is.  If the throw is NOT towards the base, F3 must be close enough to the runner to make a tag attempt or it is a balk.

 

FED butchered 6.2.4.J.

 

 

2B, 3B: F1 may step and feint to these bases, provided only that they are occupied. Since he can feint, he can do pretty much anything after he legally steps toward the base, including throwing to a fielder not near the base.

 

 

I understand what you are saying, but if he does decide to throw to 3B for example, doesn't the throw have to go in the direction where he is stepping? That is, 45 degree angle either side of 3B. 

[maven]

I understand what you are saying, but if he does decide to throw to 3B for example, doesn't the throw have to go in the direction where he is stepping? That is, 45 degree angle either side of 3B.

Yes, but that might not end up near the base, especially when compared with how near is "near" when you're talking about 1B!

[Dash Riprock]

I understand what you are saying, but if he does decide to throw to 3B for example, doesn't the throw have to go in the direction where he is stepping? That is, 45 degree angle either side of 3B. 

 

I'm having a tough time picturing that.  After he steps to 2nd, F1 will likely disengage before he throws to 3rd.  How's that for not answering your question!

 

Edited to add (but still without answering your question):  Thinking about it a bit further - a righty will almost certainly disengage to throw to 3rd after a step towards 2nd.  He's an infielder - no balk.  If a lefty tried to do that, I could see him throwing ahead of the step, and that would be a balk.

[Pops]

 

I understand what you are saying, but if he does decide to throw to 3B for example, doesn't the throw have to go in the direction where he is stepping? That is, 45 degree angle either side of 3B. 

 

I'm having a tough time picturing that.  After he steps to 2nd, F1 will likely disengage before he throws to 3rd.  How's that for not answering your question!

 

Edited to add (but still without answering your question):  Thinking about it a bit further - a righty will almost certainly disengage to throw to 3rd after a step towards 2nd.  He's an infielder - no balk.  If a lefty tried to do that, I could see him throwing ahead of the step, and that would be a balk.

 

So I guess I was correct, I think. If you step toward a base (2B for example) and throw to another base (3B for example) while still in contact with the rubber, that's a balk.

[Dash Riprock]

So I guess I was correct, I think. If you step toward a base (2B for example) and throw to another base (3B for example) while still in contact with the rubber, that's a balk.

 

8.01c seems to say just that.

 

However, there is also an old saying that:  "It is impossible to balk after stepping to (occupied) 2nd base"  (or something close to that).  There are a lot of very fine umpires who advocate this.

 

I have never seen an interpretation covering stepping to one base and throwing to another.  I have also never seen it in a game, and I hope I never do.

[grayhawk]

 

So I guess I was correct, I think. If you step toward a base (2B for example) and throw to another base (3B for example) while still in contact with the rubber, that's a balk.

 

8.01c seems to say just that.

 

However, there is also an old saying that:  "It is impossible to balk after stepping to (occupied) 2nd base"  (or something close to that).  There are a lot of very fine umpires who advocate this.

 

I have never seen an interpretation covering stepping to one base and throwing to another.  I have also never seen it in a game, and I hope I never do.

 

 

The most common example of this is when a RH pitcher does an inside move, but when his foot lands, it is towards 3B.  Sometimes, you will see the foot land and then he will kind of pivot it towards second.

[LMSANS]

 

So I guess I was correct, I think. If you step toward a base (2B for example) and throw to another base (3B for example) while still in contact with the rubber, that's a balk.

 

8.01c seems to say just that.

 

However, there is also an old saying that:  "It is impossible to balk after stepping to (occupied) 2nd base"  (or something close to that).  There are a lot of very fine umpires who advocate this.

 

I have never seen an interpretation covering stepping to one base and throwing to another.  I have also never seen it in a game, and I hope I never do.

 

I had this happen in a varsity scrimmage last year.  R2 and R3, outs don't matter.  F1 feints to 3B and throws to F6 covering 2B.  It almost worked, close call.  

 

OHC came out and said "isn't that illegal?"

Me. "Is what illegal Jason?

Jason "He faked to third and threw to second..."

Me "and...?"

Jason  "He can't throw to 2B after faking toward 3B"

Me "This is no different that the 3B to 1B move, from a rules perspective, as long as he disengages on the feint"

Jason "Really?"

Me "yep"

Jason " I never knew that..."

[grayhawk]

 

 

So I guess I was correct, I think. If you step toward a base (2B for example) and throw to another base (3B for example) while still in contact with the rubber, that's a balk.

 

8.01c seems to say just that.

 

However, there is also an old saying that:  "It is impossible to balk after stepping to (occupied) 2nd base"  (or something close to that).  There are a lot of very fine umpires who advocate this.

 

I have never seen an interpretation covering stepping to one base and throwing to another.  I have also never seen it in a game, and I hope I never do.

 

I had this happen in a varsity scrimmage last year.  R2 and R3, outs don't matter.  F1 feints to 3B and throws to F6 covering 2B.  It almost worked, close call.  

 

OHC came out and said "isn't that illegal?"

Me. "Is what illegal Jason?

Jason "He faked to third and threw to second..."

Me "and...?"

Jason  "He can't throw to 2B after faking toward 3B"

Me "This is no different that the 3B to 1B move, from a rules perspective, as long as he disengages on the feint"

Jason "Really?"

Me "yep"

Jason " I never knew that..."

 

 

In Fed, he is not required to disengage.

[maven]

Coachspeak: "Isn't that illegal?"

 

English: "I've never seen that before!"

[Pops]

 

 

 

So I guess I was correct, I think. If you step toward a base (2B for example) and throw to another base (3B for example) while still in contact with the rubber, that's a balk.

 

8.01c seems to say just that.

 

However, there is also an old saying that:  "It is impossible to balk after stepping to (occupied) 2nd base"  (or something close to that).  There are a lot of very fine umpires who advocate this.

 

I have never seen an interpretation covering stepping to one base and throwing to another.  I have also never seen it in a game, and I hope I never do.

 

I had this happen in a varsity scrimmage last year.  R2 and R3, outs don't matter.  F1 feints to 3B and throws to F6 covering 2B.  It almost worked, close call.  

 

OHC came out and said "isn't that illegal?"

Me. "Is what illegal Jason?

Jason "He faked to third and threw to second..."

Me "and...?"

Jason  "He can't throw to 2B after faking toward 3B"

Me "This is no different that the 3B to 1B move, from a rules perspective, as long as he disengages on the feint"

Jason "Really?"

Me "yep"

Jason " I never knew that..."

 

 

In Fed, he is not required to disengage.

 

Yes, he is not required to disengage, but if he makes a throw to another base while his foot is still on the rubber, it must be preceded by a step toward the base he is throwing to, correct? That was the issue I originally brought up.

[sdix00]

Any time a pitcher throws or feints to a base from the rubber, that throw or feint must be preceded by a step by the free foot toward that base.

 

1. Step to 2B and throw to 3B (one move): Balk

2. Step to 2B, and break contact. Throw to 3B (two moves): No Balk.

 

 

I learned this from Jim Evans and his publications:

I use the term "break contact" to describe how an in-contact pitcher legally steps to a base for the purpose of making a play, and subsequently disconnects from the rubber and becomes an infielder. 

I use the term "disengage" or "legally disengage" exclusively to describe an in-contact pitcher, who lifts his pivot foot off the rubber and places it behind the rubber and subsequently becomes an infielder.

 

I think it is important to distinguish these terms.   Just because F1 is no longer connected to the rubber, doesn't mean he disengaged legally.   If the pitcher doesn't "disconnect" using one of the two methods above, he is still engaged for the purpose of the pitching regulations.   

[Pops]

Any time a pitcher throws or feints to a base from the rubber, that throw or feint must be preceded by a step by the free foot toward that base.

 

1. Step to 2B and throw to 3B (one move): Balk

2. Step to 2B, and break contact. Throw to 3B (two moves): No Balk.

 

 

I learned this from Jim Evans and his publications:

I use the term "break contact" to describe how an in-contact pitcher legally steps to a base for the purpose of making a play, and subsequently disconnects from the rubber and becomes an infielder. 

I use the term "disengage" or "legally disengage" exclusively to describe an in-contact pitcher, who lifts his pivot foot off the rubber and places it behind the rubber and subsequently becomes an infielder.

 

I think it is important to distinguish these terms.   Just because F1 is no longer connected to the rubber, doesn't mean he disengaged legally.   If the pitcher doesn't "disconnect" using one of the two methods above, he is still engaged for the purpose of the pitching regulations.   

sdix: I have read many of your posts, and I must say that your thoughts/comments are extremely well organized. You certainly know how to write clearly. Thanks.