Legally disengaging

[th3]

I had a kid the other day in a scrimmage who would come set with his pivot foot up against the front of the rubber and when he wanted to disengage, he would step back but only onto the top of the rubber (instead of behind it). It was clear to everyone that he was "disengaging", but he really wasn't. I mentioned it to him after the inning but he was done for the day anyway

[ricka56]

Depends on the level of the players...be ready for trouble picking that booger.

[Mike Prince]

Better to call it now (he is still in contact with the rubber so by rule he is engaged, not disengaged) so he can correct it.  Borderline moves like that are not likely to work when (if) the player progresses to higher levels.

 

Edit:  at lower levels I say correct it.  At higher levels I am not picking that booger, F1 is putting it on my finger.

Edited April 4, 2014 by Mike Prince

[sdix00]

If there is doubt in the umpires mind, the intent of the pitcher should govern.

 

 

I would not get this one at any level if F1 is not attempting any sort of play. 

 

F1 has declared to everyone that he is stepping off and is usually just resetting or needs to adjust.

    

 

If F1 does it in a way that hides his intent (e.g. barely moving his foot), then I will get it. 

If F1 does it in a manner that gives him an advantage over the runner he plays on, then I will get it. 

 

THIS, is where the "intent to deceive" comment comes in to play.    "Intent to deceive" is a tool to decide whether to ignore a technical balk, not a criterion to determine if a move is actually a balk. 

[Jocko]

I say it's a fix it. Especially at lower levels. I doubt I would call it, but it would depend on the situation, as @sdix00 has so eloquently described. :cheers:

[johnnyg08]

There was a balk in MLB either last night or two night ago when F1 didn't step backward off of the rubber from the set.  

 

He stepped to the side and they nailed him.