Balk or not?

[HammerPIAA]

There was a recent thread with a situation similar to this one but its not quite the same so I thought I'd throw it out there for you guys..........

 

11U tournament, NFHS rules.

 

Runner on first, RHP on mound.  Pitcher stretches then comes set, all legally, foot engaged with pitchers plate.

 

Starts motion from set position, non-pivot foot comes back behind the pitchers plate, then he does a perfect spin move for a pickoff throw to 2B.  Spins, steps towards the base, but then realizes there's no runner there (nor is any fielder covering the bag, naturally) and then doesnt throw.  

 

I balk him - in this case, tournament rules play one warning per pitcher, this was first occurrence, so I warn him.  DC is all over me about the warning.  I explain that P cannot feint towards an unoccupied bag.  He says that when he spun around, his foot disengaged with the pitchers plate and therefore he became a fielder and thus he was entitled to do anything he wanted ("he could throw the ball into left field if he wanted to").  I disagreed with him and told him that a feint towards an unoccupied bag was an attempt to deceive the runner (although in retrospect the kid just screwed up, in my opinion - but at the time the play was very awkward, as you might imagine).

 

In the end there was no harm and no foul, but I wanted to be sure I got it right.  I cite NFHS 6.2.4.b - did I make the right call?

[grayhawk]

You don't mention what R1 was doing. Did he fake an advance or was he not doing anything? I'm envisioning an inside move with R1 not even faking that he's trying to advance. Balk.

[HammerPIAA]

No attempt to advance.  Simply taking his normal lead.  No steal attempt made.  

 

I do know that if he had attempted to advance, the move would have been considered legal since the P would have been attempting to make a play on an advancing runner, but that was clearly not the case here.

[afaber12]

I'm guessing that the manager was arguing that as the pitcher was spinning around for his non-throw to second that the pivot foot spun/slid/slipped/otherwise-moved off the rubber, rather than there being a discrete step off the spin around. Even assuming that was the case, he hasn't disengaged. It would be the same as doing a jump turn: the move started before he'd disengaged, therefore he's a pitcher and at risk of committing a balk if he doesn't follow all the requirements, even if the pivot foot winds up off the rubber.

[HammerPIAA]

afaber13 - thats exactly what he was saying.  Because it was clear there was no discrete step off.  And my response to him was exactly what you indicate above.  Matter of fact, I told him that if that WASNT what he was saying, then his pitcher attempted to make a pitch without being engaged with the pitchers plate which would have been an illegal pitch, and with the runner on base, a balk.  Same result either way.