FED Balk

[tankmjg24]

Alright guys and girls, I may be overthinking this one.  Situation was high school varsity with R2 and R3.  F1 toes the rubber and is looking in towards F2 getting the sign when the coach from the dugout yells out "step off and work from the windup".  F1 then takes his front foot and goes back off the rubber.  I call the balk as he did not legally disengage the rubber.  No one says a word and the game continues.  I have now been thinking rather this would have been legal and I jumped the gun.  My thought is that F1 can do a move towards second with his front foot and not throw and would be legal.  So am I just overthinking now or what?

[maven]

So was it a legal feint to 2B or an illegal disengagement? It's one or the other, and given coach's instruction, I'd guess you got it right.

 

It's a judgment call. Sometimes, you just gotta umpire.

[tankmjg24]

There was definitely no intent to throw towards a runner.  Sounds as if I am overthinking.  Illegal disengagement = balk.  So if a coach runs out to argue and asks the difference between that and faking a throw towards a base, the simple answer would be intent correct? 

[maven]

There was definitely no intent to throw towards a runner.  Sounds as if I am overthinking.  Illegal disengagement = balk.  So if a coach runs out to argue and asks the difference between that and faking a throw towards a base, the simple answer would be intent correct? 

 

"Coach, in my judgment, given the instruction you gave him, he was attempting to disengage, not feint to a base. He did so illegally, which is a balk."

[Minnz]

 

There was definitely no intent to throw towards a runner.  Sounds as if I am overthinking.  Illegal disengagement = balk.  So if a coach runs out to argue and asks the difference between that and faking a throw towards a base, the simple answer would be intent correct? 

 

"Coach, in my judgment, given the instruction you gave him, he was attempting to disengage, not feint to a base. He did so illegally, which is a balk."

 

I like that except cut out "given the instruction you gave him."  That opens an umpire up to rabbit ears comments and a whole lot more we don't need.  Your judgement was he did not disengage legally and that is it.  You got it!

[sdix00]

What you called was probably technically correct. 

 

 

Was it necessary?   Maybe.   Maybe not.   Some say we are supposed to call every balk in FED, meaning we are not supposed to consider pitcher's intent  (because it is not in the rules).    Some say you won't move up if you call every balk. 

[maven]

There was definitely no intent to throw towards a runner. Sounds as if I am overthinking. Illegal disengagement = balk. So if a coach runs out to argue and asks the difference between that and faking a throw towards a base, the simple answer would be intent correct?

"Coach, in my judgment, given the instruction you gave him, he was attempting to disengage, not feint to a base. He did so illegally, which is a balk."

I like that except cut out "given the instruction you gave him." That opens an umpire up to rabbit ears comments and a whole lot more we don't need. Your judgement was he did not disengage legally and that is it. You got it!

1. I don't care about rabbit ears.

2. Rabbit ears concerns comments about me, not instructions to players.

3. He shouted across the diamond, not muttered in the dugout.

[Replacematt]

Instead of working backwards from balk to justification, let's do it the right way. What rule was violated?

[noumpere]

Instead of working backwards from balk to justification, let's do it the right way. What rule was violated?

6-1-2, 6-2-4f

[sdix00]

Pitcher's step toward 1B when they windup.    Just because their foot went toward 1B doesn't mean they were stepping to 1B.