Throwing to unoccupied 2B, runner on 1B

[Guest Tman]

http://m.mlb.com/video/v67561683

 

So John Lackey turns and throws to second base with Hamilton taking his lead off 1B. Hamilton never indicated that he was going to 2B, Lackey just freaked for whatever reason.

 

If Hamilton had taken off running after Lackey lifted his front leg, does that make the move not a balk? 

 

This is the best illustration I've seen thus far in higher level ball of a question we've been debating on Baseball-Fever.com in the youth coaching section. There is a sentiment that at some levels of youth ball, the bases are track meets, so if you know that a runner on 1B is going on first movement, then why not simply use the inside move to 2B and throw there? 

[noumpere]

 

What I don't understand is the assertion that a pitcher can lift his lead leg up and then decide to throw to 2B if the runner goes, or that he can begin his windup, causing the runner looking for first movement to go, and then turn and throw to 2B. 

 

So if a pitcher lifts his lead leg up super slowly, he can decide to throw to 2B if the runner goes while his leg is lifting up? 

 

 

Are you asking "what is the rule?" or are you discussing "what the rule should be?"

 

If it's the former, its been answered.  I get it that you didn't know the rule.  There's nothing wrong with that; there are lots of rules that non-umps don't know (or, what they "know" is completely backwards). I appreciate you asking once; maybe even twice.  But, I don't know how we could be more clear on this.

 

If it's the latter, well, discuss away.  Just know that none of us here has any influence over the rules changes.

[grayhawk]

I am the one who posted this (Hamilton video) at BBF.  I am glad that someone else cross posted it here to get some clarification.  Hopefully this can settle the debate.

 

If history is our guide, they won't listen.

[The Flush]

 

I am the one who posted this (Hamilton video) at BBF.  I am glad that someone else cross posted it here to get some clarification.  Hopefully this can settle the debate.

 

If history is our guide, they won't listen.

 

 

I agree.

 

I really wish Hamilton had been running just to see it play out.

[Guest roothog66]

 

I am the one who posted this (Hamilton video) at BBF.  I am glad that someone else cross posted it here to get some clarification.  Hopefully this can settle the debate.

 

If history is our guide, they won't listen.

 

It's a decent site for coaching talk, but when it comes to rules, there are some crazy interpretations. In fact, the OP comes here, posts his question. Gets a response he wasn't looking for and basically goes back there and argues that the umps over here (and elsewhere I might add) don't know what they are talking about. It's nuts. If I come here and 10 out of 10 umps tell me I'm wrong, I gotta figure I'm wrong. This is a great site for learning. I hope you never block the access to this section for coaches like me.

[MadMax]

Roothog66, you can register and exist on here as a coach. @Rich Ives is our most "celebrated" (tolerated? inebriated? I can't remember... I remember it ended with -rated) coach here! He has postings in many sections throughout, and while his perspective is not umpire-ical, his perspective has merit and value.

[ZebraStripes]

 is our most "celebrated" (tolerated? inebriated? I can't remember... I remember it ended with -rated) 

 

constipated?  couldn't help it, had to say it

[roothog66]

Roothog66, you can register and exist on here as a coach. @Rich Ives is our most "celebrated" (tolerated? inebriated? I can't remember... I remember it ended with -rated) coach here! He has postings in many sections throughout, and while his perspective is not umpire-ical, his perspective has merit and value.

I have done so. Thank you. I just hope I still get to do those fun picture puzzles.

[grayhawk]

I went over and read some of that thread.  My eyes are burning!  The crap they are making up to justify their position is mind-numbing.

[ALStripes17]

I am the one who posted this (Hamilton video) at BBF. I am glad that someone else cross posted it here to get some clarification. Hopefully this can settle the debate.

BBF?

[roothog66]

I went over and read some of that thread.  My eyes are burning!  The crap they are making up to justify their position is mind-numbing.

Yeah. I'm pretty much done with that thread. I just don't think I can explain it any better than I already have and can't fight with guys who simply add things to the rules out of thin air. I also get tired of people trying to bring out the old "deception" comment under 8.05 as if that is somehow a catchall rule to avoid the actual rules.

 

I am the one who posted this (Hamilton video) at BBF. I am glad that someone else cross posted it here to get some clarification. Hopefully this can settle the debate.

BBF?

 

Baseball fever 101

[ALStripes17]

I went over and read some of that thread. My eyes are burning! The crap they are making up to justify their position is mind-numbing.

Yeah. I'm pretty much done with that thread. I just don't think I can explain it any better than I already have and can't fight with guys who simply add things to the rules out of thin air. I also get tired of people trying to bring out the old "deception" comment under 8.05 as if that is somehow a catchall rule to avoid the actual rules.

I am the one who posted this (Hamilton video) at BBF. I am glad that someone else cross posted it here to get some clarification. Hopefully this can settle the debate.

BBF?

Baseball fever 101

Ok gotcha. Thanks.

I have been over there once or twice in the past year. Some of those guys are worse than the FB group haha

[mudvnine]

OK gentlemen, I'm probably one of those "eyeball burning" coaches  from BBF you so "lovingly" speak of...so let me present this to you for your (hopefully, after reading that) unbiased opinions.
 
I'm sure this is where the "lifting the leg" thing came from when mentioned earlier in this thread....

RHed pitcher in the "Set Position" with R1....from there he can do what? 

Per 8.01(b), "From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher’s plate with his pivot foot", that's it.

If the runner doesn't start moving while the pitcher is in the "Set Position", then when the RHed pitcher lifts his free foot/leg, which one of the above mentioned things is he doing? Is he....

a.) lifting it to "deliver the ball to the batter"?
b.) lifting it to "throw to a base"?

If your answer is "b", then what base is he throwing to if R1 has not started running prior to the pitcher lifting his foot/leg? 

1B would be fine in an attempt to PO, or get R1 back to the base providing he steps directly toward it to make the throw.

But if you say 2B, he's then lifting it to "throw to an unoccupied base" which is a balk per 8.05(d). We have to remember here, R1 has not starting running yet, and only starts after F1 lifts his leg to "deliver the ball to the batter".

This generally goes along with what "maven" said when he stated, "...it would be nearly impossible to do an inside move mid stream when F1 had every intent to pitch".

 

So are you saying that none of you (besides maybe "maven") are able to determine "intent" of the pitcher, even though in the comment of 8.05(d)...

 

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.

...you are asked to determine the "intent" of the runner?

 

So assuming you are able/capable, then what predicates when F1 is moving to "deliver the ball to the batter" vs. to "throw the ball to a base", and when does the runner's "intent" come into play vs. that of the pitcher?

 

Because isn't the very essence of the "balk" rules set forth so that....

 

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent†of the pitcher should govern.

....and a pitcher lifting his leg to attempt an "inside move" to an "unoccupied" 2B is only to do so with what "intent"?  I mean, what else would he have in mind with a runner on 1B by attempting that?  

 

And just to be clear, I understand that in the FED Rule 6-1-4(a. and b.), allow a little more leeway for the pitcher, and his "intent" (he could "drive back a runner" who's taking a longer secondary lead by interpretation) at the HS level, but the question was posed to Lackey, and Hamilton per the OBR interpretation(s).

 

OK, that's about it....I'm curious to hear your thoughts/interpretations of the above.

 

 

Thanks,

"Eyeball burning" mud -

[maven]

What's the question?

[TheRockawayKid]

 

I believe the OP is asking a question based on an argument that this move would only be legal if the runner made a move to advance to second before the pitcher lifted the non-pivot leg even in the event that he had correctly "guessed" that a steal would be attempted. The OP's contention, I believe, would be that once a rhp lifts his leg, a steal of second that only began after the leg lift would commit the pitcher to going to the plate with a pitch.

I think you are right, and I missed that question.

 

Lifting the leg just means that F1 can't throw to the base behind him (1B in Lackey's case).

This isn't true. If he lifts his leg, he's still able to throw to first base as long as he steps. Rule 8.01 says that he can step once he comes set. It says that "any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption." It says nothing about him not being allowed to throw to the base behind him. 

[mudvnine]

What's the question?

How, or when, and by whom do you determine "intent", as to the timing of an "inside move" by a pitcher, to throw to an "unoccupied base"?

 

I just had a poster at BBF tell me that....

The pitcher decides BEFORE he starts a movement that he is either going home or going to second. If the runner doesn't go, it's a balk.

 

I guess I'm asking....has umpiring been reduced down to it's just a matter luck as to whether the runner goes or not, making it just that easy, or is some thought put into the call and situation, as to whether the pitcher was actually reacting to what the runner was doing, or whether the runner ran due to the movement(s) or actions of what the pitcher was doing?

 

In my purely "coaches" opinion, if a pitcher's "intent" BEFORE he starts a movement, is to throw to an "unoccupied base", and that if the fundamental "purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner"....than just a runner taking off on first movement (ie. leg lift) should not be the only deciding factor an umpire should have to make as to whether the pitcher's "inside move" to an "unoccupied base" is a balk or not.

 

Seems like it takes any "judgement" out of the umpire's hands, but if that's how it being done now, I can tell you one thing...I'm going to be changing the way I coach my RHed pitchers on how to deal with runners on 1B from here on out.  

[grayhawk]

I think you're really making this harder than it needs to be.  What I am looking for is a legal move by F1.  If he makes a legal "inside move" to an unoccupied second base (with R1), then I will decide if R1 was stealing, or if his movement was enough to give ME the impression that he was attempting to advance.

 

I am not going to take into account the timing of R1's bluff as compared to F1's move.  I am not going to try to get into F1's mind to determine if he "intended" to make his move to second from the get go, or if he just reacted to R1's bluff.

 

My comment about changing the move mid-stream was to discuss the practicality (not the legality) of being able to use the inside move when F1's plan when he raised his knee towards the balance point was to pitch.  The physics of it would just be nearly impossible to pull off (because his momentum would be towards home).

 

Don't overthink this.

[maven]

 

 

I believe the OP is asking a question based on an argument that this move would only be legal if the runner made a move to advance to second before the pitcher lifted the non-pivot leg even in the event that he had correctly "guessed" that a steal would be attempted. The OP's contention, I believe, would be that once a rhp lifts his leg, a steal of second that only began after the leg lift would commit the pitcher to going to the plate with a pitch.

I think you are right, and I missed that question.

 

Lifting the leg just means that F1 can't throw to the base behind him (1B in Lackey's case).

 

This isn't true. If he lifts his leg, he's still able to throw to first base as long as he steps. Rule 8.01 says that he can step once he comes set. It says that "any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption." It says nothing about him not being allowed to throw to the base behind him.

 

It is true. If F1 lifts his leg to start a pitch, he might be able to step toward a base, but he will not be stepping directly to the base. You omitted a crucial word from 8.05(c ) in your paraphrase of 8.01.

 

In practice, F1 cannot throw to the base behind him once he has lifted his leg. Just as noumpere stated.

[maven]

I think you're really making this harder than it needs to be.  What I am looking for is a legal move by F1.  If he makes a legal "inside move" to an unoccupied second base (with R1), then I will decide if R1 was stealing, or if his movement was enough to give ME the impression that he was attempting to advance.

 

I am not going to take into account the timing of R1's bluff as compared to F1's move.  I am not going to try to get into F1's mind to determine if he "intended" to make his move to second from the get go, or if he just reacted to R1's bluff.

 

My comment about changing the move mid-stream was to discuss the practicality (not the legality) of being able to use the inside move when F1's plan when he raised his knee towards the balance point was to pitch.  The physics of it would just be nearly impossible to pull off (because his momentum would be towards home).

 

Don't overthink this.

 

I agree with all 4 points.

[mudvnine]

Well I must say, I do appreciate the confirmation that umpires apparently disregard the rules as written...or if nothing else, appear to give contradictory opinions even individually.

 

So....

If F1 lifts his leg to start a pitch, he might be able to step toward a base, but he will not be stepping directly to the base.

 

In practice, F1 cannot throw to the base behind him once he has lifted his leg.

...then with a runner on 1B, how can he lift his leg to throw to an unoccupied 2B, when R1 takes off immediately upon (technically after if we want to split hairs) that leg lift....because R1 also knows that, "in practice, F1 cannot throw to the base behind him once he has lifted his leg", so the pitcher must be lifting his leg to "deliver the ball to the batter"?

 

Also how can that, and this....

My comment about changing the move mid-stream was to discuss the practicality (not the legality) of being able to use the inside move when F1's plan when he raised his knee towards the balance point was to pitch.  The physics of it would just be neIfarly impossible to pull off (because his momentum would be towards home).

....allow for an "inside move" after leg lift, which you also say you agree with?

 

Let's turn the tables around here a bit, you and greyhawk are now the coaches, and I'm umpiring.....

 

F1 is in his set position, you both know that "F1 cannot throw to the base behind him once he has lifted his leg", and you also know that the "practicality" of F1 "changing the move mid-stream of being able to use the inside move when F1's plan when he raised his knee towards the balance point was to pitch", simply because the "physics of it would be nearly impossible" for him to do anything different....when would you coach your players to break for 2B on a steal?

 

Would you use all of the propositions you just offered, and have them leave on initial leg lift (pitcher's obviously not making a PO move to 1B), or would you now have to teach them something different...to wait until the pitcher's "momentum would be toward home" (which could be much later in the delivery, think of a LHed pitcher with an R1)....

 

Would you say anything to me, when I see what your runner sees, and that when I see the pitcher lift his leg giving the appearance that he's not making a throw to 1B, so then he must be doing so to "deliver the ball to the batter", and I watch your R1 take off running at just that instant....but F1 does not throw to the batter, instead, he makes one continues svelte move to turn and throw to 2B, and I didn't "balk" him for that "deceptive" move?

 

So did you guys instruct your player incorrectly, and if so, how will you teach him now if I don't "balk" the pitcher, and say that he was somehow just magically/miraculously able to suddenly, in an instant be able to go from what we all thought was to "deliver the ball to the batter", to making this "nearly physically impossible move" to retire your guy, by "throw[ing] to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play?

 

What you and greyhawk are proposing, is that now there is absolutely no reason for me to teach any of my F1s a "slide step". All they now have to do, is slowly raise/lift the lead leg, and should R1 take off anytime during that slow/early lift...simply turn to the inside, and nonchalantly toss the ball to the fielder hustling to cover 2B.

 

If we're talking FED ball, we can essentially throw out 6-1-4-d....

If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a pitcher while he is touching the pitcher's plate is a balk: 

 

d. failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery; 

...right out the window,

 

Because apparently, "any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery", can now be used to deceive the runner into running, so F1 can simply turn and "throw or feint to any unoccupied base when it is not [in] an attempt to put out or drive back" the "deceived" runner, not to mention I'm sure a throughly confused runner as well....unless you guys taught him to wait until the pitcher's momentum started toward the plate, and then there be no reason he'd ever attempt to steal again given that little caveat.

 

So how'd I do, is that now "clear as mud"?   

[grayhawk]

When Maven was talking about a base "behind" the pitcher, he was talking about first base for a righty and third base for a lefty. When he raises his leg, second base is still game until he makes a move towards home.

[maven]

Good luck with your games, dude.

[mudvnine]

Ugh, you guys are still not getting what I'm asking, or maybe I'm not asking it correctly.  Let me see if I can simplify or be more succinct.

 

What do you as umpires use to determine when a pitcher from the Set Position, is he committed to "any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter" per OBR 8.01(b)....

 

The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of, the pitcher’s plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to a complete stop. From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher’s plate with his pivot foot. Before assuming Set Position, the pitcher may elect to make any natural preliminary motion such as that known as “the stretch.†But if he so elects, he shall come to Set Position before delivering the ball to the batter. After assuming Set Position, any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption.

...or FED 6-1-4-d...

 

d. failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery; 

....to actually deliver the ball, and can no longer make a play on a runner?

 

One person offered the free "knee making ground toward home", while "momentum to the plate" was also offered earlier...is that what you're waiting/looking for, or is it like how Justice Stewart tried to (or avoided to) define pornography...."I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it?

 

Maybe put another way....once a pitcher commits himself to "deliver the ball to the batter", would it still be within the rules/interpretation of 8.05(d) for him to then make a "throw or feint to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play"....and if that's the case, than I guess a pitcher's commitment to complete his delivery is a mute point?    

 

*********

Oh and "maven", thank you for the best wishes of "good luck" with my games "dude", but I've never really relied on luck to have the success that I do from the game.

 

I find my success by trying to get as much information whenever, and wherever possible, in order make future decisions on how I coach my players to take every advantage we can from the rules as written, and from those who are supposedly able to interpret them logically and fairly.

 

My apologies if the questions are too difficult for you to answer or gosh forbid on record publicly, and that flying by the seat of your pants should you ever unfortunately run into such play....seems to be your mode of operation.  

 

That's also good to know however, as when it comes to who I might consider getting information or input from in the future.

 

 

Thanks (I think),

mud -

[noumpere]

Ugh, you guys are still not getting what I'm asking, or maybe I'm not asking it correctly.  Let me see if I can simplify or be more succinct.

 

What do you as umpires use to determine when a pitcher from the Set Position, is he committed to "any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter" per OBR 8.01(b)....

 

 

I posted this back in post 6:

 

Lifting the leg just means that F1 can't throw to the base behind him (1B in Lackey's case).

 

Crossing the back plane of the rubber means F1 can't throw to the base being faced.

 

Some other movement is needed to commit to second or the plate.

 

It's why the first move by a LH pitcher could be a move to first or to the plate.  Something *else* has to happen for us to decide which it is.

 

And, you should just ignore the "purpose of the balk rule is to prevent deception" phrasing.  It's one of the 234 errors / ommissions / misstatements in the book.

 

Finally, to help address the OP and your questions -- the rules / interps / judgments when R1 is advancing (or feinting an advance) are the same as the rules / interps / judgments used when there is an R2.  If a move to second is legal with an R2, it's legal with an r1 advancing; if it's illegal with an r2, it's illegal with an R1 advancing.

[Majordave]

Okay, warnings issued. Mr. mudvnine your frustration is entirely your own. Are you a coach or a troll? These guys are trying to answer your questions with grace and intelligence. You don't seem to like the answers so you take them to task. We aren't a coaching site. If that's what you want to argue about then go there. A lot of balk discussions get hard because they aren't easy to call or explain at higher levels. Some coaches spend more time teaching pitches to hold runners and pick off moves than to actually throw strikes to batters.

Lighten up please. Or stop posting. Also, try to parse out your questions with some numbers and spacing. Your stuff is very hard to follow at times. Thanks for playing. Now, play nice please or go away.

[ricka56]

Ugh, you guys are still not getting what I'm asking, or maybe I'm not asking it correctly.  Let me see if I can simplify or be more succinct.

 

What do you as umpires use to determine when a pitcher from the Set Position, is he committed to "any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter" per OBR 8.01(b)....

 

What I don't think you understand is that F1's first movement(s) hasn't necessarily committed him to go to HP, 1B or 2B yet. And even if you were mind-reader and knew of F1's original intention, his first movement has not  committed him to any direction yet. His first movement(s) may look like his "natural motion associated with his delivery of a pitch", but F1 hasn't committed to pitch until he steps towards HP, or if his non-pivot foot crosses the rubber, except if he is making a play on a runner (OBR 8.05d). And contrary to the popular myth, deception in and or itself is not legal (or else curve balls would be illegal). Illegal deception is illegal.

 

If R1 goes on first movement and F1 has not yet committed to deliver a pitch, he can make a play on that runner, but he has to do that legally. If his play on R1 has F1 moving/stepping towards 1B, he has committed to throwing to 1B and its a balk if he doesn't. If FI recognizes that R1 is stealing and has not yet committed to pitching or throwing to 1B, he can make that inside move and throw to the currently unoccupied 2B to make a play on R1.

 

Again, first movement(s), nor F1's original intent does not matter. His action will eventually commit him to pitch, throw to 1B or throw to 2B. But you have to wait for that commitment to decide whether his following action was legal/illegal.