Pick off 3rd from windup

[Guest Tm]

If a right handed pitcher starts his wind up motion....steps back, pivots with leg up.......at that point he does not break plane with his legs but steps strait toward third and throws pick off......that is legal is it not?

[UmpJM]

Tm,

 

No, that would be a balk.

 

Once the pitcher takes his "rocker step", he is committed to pitch. (8.05c)

 

JM

[noumpere]

It is not.  the step back with the free foot commits him to pitch.

[Replacematt]

And in FED, it's always illegal to pickoff, rocker step or not, from the windup unless F1 disengages first.

[CricketChapman]

To summarize for OP:

A pick-off throw to third is permitted from the wind-up in OBR (8.01(a) Comment).  However, the pitcher must step and throw directly (and w/ distance) to the base (8.05©).  The pitcher must make this throw prior to making any motion naturally associated with his pitch (8.05(a)).

In your case, the "rocker step" is a motion naturally associated w/ the pitcher's pitch.  Thus, he is committed to pitching once he "rocks."  If he fails to do so, it is a balk.

The proper legal move is for the pitcher to pick his left foot up, before taking any rocker step, and stepping directly (and w/ distance) towards third and throwing the ball.

[UmpJM]

Cricket,

 

While I concur with your essential point, I would describe it differently.

 

The REAL violation is failing to make a "direct step" to the base thrown to with the free foot. (As opposed to the "motion naturally associated...")

 

Perhaps it's just semantics. Either is sufficient to call the balk.

 

JM

[maven]

Cricket,

 

While I concur with your essential point, I would describe it differently.

 

The REAL violation is failing to make a "direct step" to the base thrown to with the free foot. (As opposed to the "motion naturally associated...")

 

Perhaps it's just semantics. Either is sufficient to call the balk.

 

JM

 

JM, I'm curious why you would say so. I'll pose this as a question.

 

Because the "rocker step" commits F1 to pitch, it is part of the pitch and not (an improper) part of a pick-off. If F1 subsequently throws to a base, it is a start/stop balk, not a step balk.

 

The pitch began legally and started first, before the pickoff move. Its interruption is illegal, and also happened before an illegal pickoff (the step wasn't illegal until he threw to a base).

 

Why wouldn't you rule that instead of regarding the entire act as an illegal pickoff move? Just because that's where the ball went?

 

You say this might be mere semantics, but then why bother correcting Cricket? And if some codes prohibit arguing a step balk, this could be a distinction with a difference...