Inside move to 2nd with runner stealing from 1st

[Guest JoeR]

Hello,

 

I've been helping coach a youth baseball team and we've been working on controlling the running game and what to do if a guy takes off early from first.

 

Here's my question: Is it a balk to use an "inside move" to second base when there is a runner on first that is stealing without stepping off? Obviously second is unoccupied and if the pitcher lifts his leg that can be interpreted as going home with the ball. Does the pitcher have to disengage the mound first? I know that he can spin and throw because that can't be seen as going to the plate at all.

 

I realize that the rules say they can throw to an unoccupied base to make a play, but I'm wondering if using the inside move to second on a steal could be considered a balk since it can be interpreted as going home.

 

Thanks!

[Guest Jeff]

So, with a runner on first (who has not made a move toward second), what could a RH pitcher legally be doing when he lifts his free foot other than beginning his natural pitching motion? Once started, does he no longer have to complete his natural motion if the runner steals?

[ALStripes17]

So, with a runner on first (who has not made a move toward second), what could a RH pitcher legally be doing when he lifts his free foot other than beginning his natural pitching motion? Once started, does he no longer have to complete his natural motion if the runner steals?

He is still allowed to step towards 2B, 3B, or home with a natural step as occurs on typical pickoffs (or a pitch). Just because a runner isn't going to 2B immediately doesnt exclude the pitcher from being able to do so. It would be illegal to do so, until there is a play to be made. When the runner makes an advance (or feint in some codes), the illegality is dropped. The timing of a pitcher's leg lift is not a factor- the step just has to be direct and towards the base to which he throws or feints.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Guest CJK]

OP mentions situations where the runner "takes off early."

I'd agree with you in your assessment of what's true about a runner who has not made a move toward second, but I think the question is about a runner who *has* made a move toward second.  If the runner has made his move, I don't have a balk on a pitcher using the "inside move" to step directly toward second without disengaging, even if he doesn't make a throw.

[noumpere]

16 hours ago, Guest Jeff said:

So, with a runner on first (who has not made a move toward second), what could a RH pitcher legally be doing when he lifts his free foot other than beginning his natural pitching motion? Once started, does he no longer have to complete his natural motion if the runner steals?

He HAS NOT started his natural pitching motion.  He has started a move that commits him to some options and those options INCLUDE his natural pitching motion.

 

 

[grayhawk]

3 hours ago, noumpere said:

He HAS NOT started his natural pitching motion.  He has started a move that commits him to some options and those options INCLUDE his natural pitching motion.

 

 

Of course, this is correct.  I CAN see our guest's point that at the moment the pitcher lifted his free foot, the only legal thing he could do would be to pitch the ball.  His error is that he believes this action in irrecoverable even if the runner then breaks for second base and the pitcher never makes a move to the plate.  In his mind, the pitcher already balked before the runner broke.

I have said it many times.  Most pitchers cannot execute an inside move AFTER lifting the free foot with the intention of delivering a pitch without balking for some OTHER reason (start/stop, not properly stepping, etc).  They pretty much would have had to steal the signs, or flat out gamble that the runner would break (like the Lackey balk trying to get Billy Hamilton).

[roothog66]

At the younger youth ages where teams turn it into a track meet by stealing on every pitch, I often used this as gamble. At those ages, the steal rates approach 100% and there is very little risk. You don't have to do it very often and, even if the runner doesn't go and there's a balk committed, it certainly gets into the head of whoever is calling for steals and cuts out the "steal on every pitch mentality." At older ages, the risk starts to outweigh the reward and I only very occasionally used it when either I had stolen the signs or had an exceptionally good base stealer that I thought was almost surely going on the first pitch and would almost surely be successful. The other situation is 3-2 count, 2 outs and I've noticed a team has a tendency to take off at first movement.

It's often argued that this is a bush move. However, I only see it as giving the RHP same advantage that a lefty has. With a lefty on the mound, the runner has to either wait for the pitcher to start towards the plate at which point he is committed to pitch or take a gamble and go on first movement. The inside move by the righty only puts the runner in the same place hi is with a lefty.

Now, in case the OP is thinking about trying to teach his pitchers to start their motion and then decide on whether to pitch or move inside - forget it. It's almost impossible to teach. Just stick with taking a guess and going for it. At youth levels, if you're wrong, you just give up second which was probably going to happen on the next pitch, anyway.

[roothog66]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 11:51 AM, maven said:

 

I would not put the point this way, which seems to make a hash of the term 'unoccupied'.

 

Instead, I would emphasize that the prohibition on throwing to an unoccupied base has an exception, namely a throw for the purpose of making a play (or, for FED, driving back a runner: 6-2-4b).

I'm with you here, which is why I hate Comment 8.05(b):

(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.

This comment seems not to recognize the exception at all, but instead apply some off the wall reasoning that makes second now occupied. The reason it's not a balk isn't because it shouldn't be "interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base." Of course, he's throwing to an unoccupied base! It's not a balk because of the exception to the rule.

[roothog66]

On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2014 at 11:34 AM, BalkHawk said:

It is legal, unless the runner fakes his attempt to advance. The umpire must judge the difference between a feint to steal and a foiled stolen base.

 

That being said, should the runner leave early from 1st, I would teach my pitcher to disengage the rubber, then run at the runner.

I would say that under OBR, even a feint makes the move legal.

Rule 8.05(d) Comment: When determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an

unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire should consider whether a runner on the

previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied

base.

A feint would be demonstrating "an impression of his intent" to steal. That's sort of the definition of "feint."

[BalkHawk]

Read deeper and stop trying to twist it to meet your needs. 

"creates an impression of his INTENT" should be read "begins with intention to steal then hits the 'oh sh!t' button. Which is not to be adjudged the same as a fake or deke.

Baseball!

[Jimurray]

41 minutes ago, BalkHawk said:

Read deeper and stop trying to twist it to meet your needs. 

"creates an impression of his INTENT" should be read "begins with intention to steal then hits the 'oh sh!t' button. Which is not to be adjudged the same as a fake or deke.

Baseball!

Then why did the wording change?

[BalkHawk]

So the lawyers can keep charging $500/hr. of course. 

[BalkHawk]

On 4/10/2014 at 1:04 PM, Guest JoeR said:

Here's my question: Is it a balk to use an "inside move" to second base when there is a runner on first that is stealing without stepping off?...

...I'm wondering if using the inside move to second on a steal could be considered a balk since it can be interpreted as going home.

"6.02 (a)(4) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;
Rule 6.02 (a)(4) Comment (Rule 8.05(d ) Comment): When
determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an
unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire
should consider whether a runner on the previous base demon-
strates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to
advance to such unoccupied base."

I cross-referenced this with my 2014 rulebook. Forgive me if I'm being lazy but what changed besides the rule #?

[BalkHawk]

From the (2014) PBUC Manual:
 

Quote

8.7 THROWING TO AN UNOCCUPIED BASE

     Official Rule 8.05 (d) provides that the pitcher be charged with a balk if, while in contact with the rubber, he throws to an unoccupied base except for the purpose of making a play.

     Play 1: Runners on first and second, pitcher in set position. Runner breaks for third base and pitcher throws to third base. 

     Ruling 1: Legal play. 

     Play 2: Runners on first and second, pitcher in set position. Runner bluffs going to third base and pitcher throws to third base. However, runner did not go. 

     Ruling 2: Balk under Official Baseball Rule 8.05(d).

HERE COMES THE GOOD SH*#:

Quote

The key to understanding the above two plays is for the umpire to use good judgment in deciding whether or not the runner on the previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base. These plays will most likely happen with a 3-2 count and two out. 

(30 year track record of poor decisions, now I'm supposed to use 'good judgment'???)

Off topic, but worth noting, the pitcher may also throw to an unoccupied base whilst on the rubber, without penalty if it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. Not that you'll ever see that because his coach thinks he's got to get on the rubber and step off again even though the ball remained live. 

[Jimurray]

9 hours ago, BalkHawk said:

"6.02 (a)(4) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;
Rule 6.02 (a)(4) Comment (Rule 8.05(d ) Comment): When
determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an
unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire
should consider whether a runner on the previous base demon-
strates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to
advance to such unoccupied base."

I cross-referenced this with my 2014 rulebook. Forgive me if I'm being lazy but what changed besides the rule #?

The comment was added in 2014:

 

• Added Rule 8.05(d) Comment regarding the pitcher throwing to an unoccupied base when a runner, in the umpire’s judgment, creates the impression he is attempting to advance to that base. 

[BalkHawk]

Jorge said so. I got notes. 

 

[roothog66]

I think the added comment makes it clear that the umpire is to make the judgment based on the physical actions of a runner. In reality, a runner who is "feinting" with no intention of actually making a move on second base is physically applying the exact same actions as a runner who, as BalkHawk puts, has an "Oh SH*#" moment. I would have to believe that the wording "creates the impression" encompasses both actions in a way meant to imply that either action brings the exception into play. This removes from the umpire's responsibility the almost impossible job of reading a runners mind to determine if he were actually intending to make an advance and aborting the move or only feinting. In fact, the definition of feint is:

" a movement made in order to deceive an adversary; an attack aimed at one place or point merely as a distraction from the real place or point of attack." In other words, a feint is an attempt to create a particular impression that is not a true attempt but intended, nevertheless, to convey the impression as if it were a true attempt.

[BalkHawk]

On 12/2/2016 at 0:30 AM, BalkHawk said:

The key to understanding the above two plays is for the umpire to use good judgment in deciding whether or not the runner on the previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base. These plays will most likely happen with a 3-2 count and two out. 

If what you say is cowrekt, why does the book bother with all those words? They could have just said the pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base as long as the runner steals or feints a steal .

Try defining "intent" rather than "feint."

BTW, Google defines feint: (noun) a mock attack or movement in warfare, made in order to distract or deceive an enemy.

(verb) pretend to throw a (punch or blow) in order to deceive or distract an opponent.

 

[ALStripes17]

If what you say is cowrekt, why does the book bother with all those words? They could have just said the pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base as long as the runner steals or feints a steal .

Try defining "intent" rather than "feint."

BTW, Google defines feint: (noun) a mock attack or movement in warfare, made in order to distract or deceive an enemy.

(verb) pretend to throw a (punch or blow) in order to deceive or distract an opponent.

 

Odd, my Google defines the verb version of feint as "make a deceptive or distracting movement, typically during a fight."

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[maven]

Google doesn't define anything: it snags a definition from a source that its algorithms suggest you're likely to acknowledge.

[BalkHawk]

Yeah! Algorithmicalized!

Actually, my Google say what his Google say. However, if you are familiar with the complex English language and have seen a dictionary, you will notice that the same word can be used in multiple contexts, slightly (or totally) changing its meaning, or definition. 

Rather than copy/paste the first definition, I read on and found the definition that most related to the context in which we used the word. 

This forum is great because it gave me a reason to do a full review of my references for one intricate part of the rules. This forum sucks when we split hairs, which we never fail to do. I think I'm as guilt as anyone of this. 

Let's change the subject, I'm going to look and see how many people looked at my mask for sale but didn't want it.