From today...

[UmpJM]

Interesting situation from one of my games today, which might prove instructive. (FED rules. If you think it would be different under NCAA or OBR, by all means, jump right in.)

R1, R2, 1 out. F1 makes a good pick-off move to 1B and legally fires a throw directly to the bag. Unfortunately, F3, who is not "holding", has fallen asleep and, belatedly realizing there is a pick on makes a futile dive in the general direction of the throw and does not even come close as the ball bounds against the RF fence. R2 advances and rounds 3rd, attempting home. F3 retrieves the errant throw and fires a perfect one-hopper to home where F2 tags out the advancing R2 on a relatively close play at the plate. R1 ends up on 3B. What have you got?

 

 

JM

 

 

[Dash Riprock]

I have nothing but a live ball.  He threw directly to the base.  No balk.  All codes.

[Jocko]

Similar situation: NFHS

R3, outs don't matter. RHP is getting antsy because R3 is taking big leads and feinting like he's breaking for HP. F5 isnt anywhere near the bag.F1 steps off several times (legally) and walks him back. Finally, F1, from a legal set, throws to F5 SEVERAL steps away from the bag (he made no move toward the bag, merely caught the ball).

Balk or Legal?

[tldavis19]

Similar situation: NFHS

R3, outs don't matter. RHP is getting antsy because R3 is taking big leads and feinting like he's breaking for HP. F5 isnt anywhere near the bag.F1 steps off several times (legally) and walks him back. Finally, F1, from a legal set, throws to F5 SEVERAL steps away from the bag (he made no move toward the bag, merely caught the ball).

Balk or Legal?

6.2.4 SITUATION J:

 

With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, he realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in his normal defensive position. F1 completes the throw without interruption. The coach of the offensive team wants a balk called on F1.

 

RULING: As long as F3 is in the proximity of the base, F1 would not be guilty of a balk. Proximity is umpire judgment and is based on whether the fielder is close enough to the base to legitimately make a play on the runner.

 

according to the case book, it is all up to you. In your judgement, was the fielder close enough to the bag?

I think this is a HTBT situation. Did he make no move toward the bag? sure. Was he still close enough to make a play? Your Judgement. 

 

I'm not going to get this balk unless it is egregious. He would have to be a mile from the bag.  Definitely not going to get it if he threw to the bag and the fielder wasn't home. 

 

In @UmpJM 's sitch, I've got R3 with 2 outs and waiting for the next batter. In @Jocko 's sitch, I'd HTBT.

[alex7]

an out!

 

P throwing pickoff over 1st base is legal.  Whether the 1B is there or not is a matter of defensive philosophy  =)

P throwing pickoff to 1st baseman away from 1st base is illegal.

[Jocko]

@alex7 - ball rolled to the fence. Get an out snd theres gonna be a riot

[Dash Riprock]

@alex7 - ball rolled to the fence. Get an out snd theres gonna be a riot

The out was on R2 at the plate.  The only way to NOT get that out would be to balk the initial throw.

[Dash Riprock]

R1 has a 15 foot lead (because F3 is not holding him on).  F1 notices a lapse in R1's concentration and steps and throws to F3 (who is also about 15 feet from the base).  F3 is able to tag R1 for the out.  Balk?

[maven]

 

Interesting situation from one of my games today, which might prove instructive. (FED rules. If you think it would be different under NCAA or OBR, by all means, jump right in.)

R1, R2, 1 out. F1 makes a good pick-off move to 1B and legally fires a throw directly to the bag. Unfortunately, F3, who is not "holding", has fallen asleep and, belatedly realizing there is a pick on makes a futile dive in the general direction of the throw and does not even come close as the ball bounds against the RF fence. R2 advances and rounds 3rd, attempting home. F3 retrieves the errant throw and fires a perfect one-hopper to home where F2 tags out the advancing R2 on a relatively close play at the plate. R1 ends up on 3B. What have you got?

 

Legal. R2 out, now 2 outs.

 

 

Similar situation: NFHS

R3, outs don't matter. RHP is getting antsy because R3 is taking big leads and feinting like he's breaking for HP. F5 isnt anywhere near the bag.F1 steps off several times (legally) and walks him back. Finally, F1, from a legal set, throws to F5 SEVERAL steps away from the bag (he made no move toward the bag, merely caught the ball).

Balk or Legal?

 

Legal in FED, balk in OBR (where 3B is the new 1B, so F1 must throw to the base).

 

 

R1 has a 15 foot lead (because F3 is not holding him on).  F1 notices a lapse in R1's concentration and steps and throws to F3 (who is also about 15 feet from the base).  F3 is able to tag R1 for the out.  Balk?

 

Per 6.2.4J already posted, this is clearly legal in FED, as F3 made a (successful) play on the runner.

[noumpere]

Agreed with maven on all the plays.

[UmpJM]

Well, what about the balk proscription on "throwing to an unoccupied base"?

 

F3 was nowhere near the base, so isn't it "unoccupied"?

 

JM

[maven]

Well, what about the balk proscription on "throwing to an unoccupied base"?

 

F3 was nowhere near the base, so isn't it "unoccupied"?

 

JM

 

 

But seriously: if coach asks about whether that's throwing to an unoccupied base, you simply explain that 'occupied' means by a runner at the time of the pitch, not by a fielder. Since there was R1, 1B was occupied. FED 2-30-2

[Kevin_K]

 

 

R1 has a 15 foot lead (because F3 is not holding him on).  F1 notices a lapse in R1's concentration and steps and throws to F3 (who is also about 15 feet from the base).  F3 is able to tag R1 for the out.  Balk?

 

Per 6.2.4J already posted, this is clearly legal in FED, as F3 made a (successful) play on the runner.

 

 

I would have a real hard time not calling  a balk on this. I understand the rule, the case play, and the intent, however, this sitch puts the runner at a distinct disadvantage. My interpretation would be that F3 is not in the immediate proximity of the bag, therefore a balk is in order.

 

Consider a similar play at 2B where the runner is 15 feet from the bag, and nearly even with F6 who might be cheating toward the middle in hopes of turning a DP. No balk there would lead to an unbelievable  sh*%&storm.

 

My .02.

[UmpJM]

Kevin,

 

No, you do not understand the rule, the case play, or the intent.

 

If you CALLED a balk in the new sitch you present (pick-off throw to F6 who is not at the bag that retires a runner), THEN you would have a S@$tstorm on your hands, and deservedly so.

 

JM

[maven]

 

 

R1 has a 15 foot lead (because F3 is not holding him on).  F1 notices a lapse in R1's concentration and steps and throws to F3 (who is also about 15 feet from the base).  F3 is able to tag R1 for the out.  Balk?

 

Per 6.2.4J already posted, this is clearly legal in FED, as F3 made a (successful) play on the runner.

 

 

I would have a real hard time not calling  a balk on this. I understand the rule, the case play, and the intent, however, this sitch puts the runner at a distinct disadvantage. My interpretation would be that F3 is not in the immediate proximity of the bag, therefore a balk is in order.

 

First, that's not an interpretation, it's a ruling: it's the application of a rule plus an interpretation to make a call (safe/out, fair/foul, or in this case, balk/no balk).

 

Second, your ruling is based on your interpretation of 'proximity', which contradicts explicit FED guidance.

 

6.2.4J: "RULING: As long as F3 is in the proximity of the base, F1 would not be guilty of a balk. Proximity is umpire judgment and is based on whether the fielder is close enough to the base to legitimately make a play on the runner."

 

Since in Dash's play F3 TAGGED the runner, he was clearly close enough to "make a play" on the runner, and thus in proximity of the base. On a correct interpretation, F1 would thus satisfy the requirement to "throw to the base," and so he could not properly be charged with a balk.

 

Don't stop reading at "Proximity is umpire judgment..."

[Kevin_K]

 

 

 

R1 has a 15 foot lead (because F3 is not holding him on).  F1 notices a lapse in R1's concentration and steps and throws to F3 (who is also about 15 feet from the base).  F3 is able to tag R1 for the out.  Balk?

 

Per 6.2.4J already posted, this is clearly legal in FED, as F3 made a (successful) play on the runner.

 

 

I would have a real hard time not calling  a balk on this. I understand the rule, the case play, and the intent, however, this sitch puts the runner at a distinct disadvantage. My interpretation would be that F3 is not in the immediate proximity of the bag, therefore a balk is in order.

 

Consider a similar play at 2B where the runner is 15 feet from the bag, and nearly even with F6 who might be cheating toward the middle in hopes of turning a DP. No balk there would lead to an unbelievable  sh*%&storm.

 

My .02.

 

 

Maybe I should proofread my writing a little more closely. I meant to say..... I would have a hard time calling a balk in this situation.

 

So sorry.

[UmpJM]

Well that's DIFFERENT!

 

Never mind.... 

 

JM

[Dash Riprock]

I think what FED (and others, including, I believe, at least one pro school) meant to say was it is not a balk if the fielder is close enough to the RUNNER to make a play on him.  Proximity to the base has nothing to do with making a play, because there is no force. 

[bam]

It would be different under OBR. There. Jumped in.