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? 

[Majordave]

As a coach you teach runners to observe F1s moves as closely as possible. But, no matter how much you study, a well-trained and highly skilled F1 retains the advantage. Almost all F1's have a "tell" or a weakness. My experience is their pickoff and hold runners skills development has a negative affect on their throwing consistent strikes and hitting appropriate spots development until they are professionals.

[Stan W.]

 

What about IIITBTSB ?

it's impossible to balk to second base

 

somewhere in Oregon, Tim Christensen is smiling.....

[roothog66]

Honestly, Mud, as a strategy, it's not worth considering except at young "track meet" ages. It just doesn't work at anything above 11u unless you can steal signs on a consistant basis. If you think you can teach a pitcher to make the decision after he's began his motion, believe me, I've tried. It's a move that is next to impossible to do. Your pitcher either is guessing steal and going to second (guess wrong and it's a balk) or he's pitching. The momentum shifts involved make it hard to effectively make a late decision and throw anything close to a decent pitch. As a runner, you don't worry about it unless and until you actually run into a coach who would use it. That is very unlikely to happen. Look, I used it at 9u - 11u regularly and at 12u and 13u on rare occasions. After that, it's a waste of time to even think about. At those young ages, just showing it a couple of times resulted in runners at first treating rhp's with the same respect they gave lefties. It stops the track meet method of stealing bases dead. However, by a certain age, even the very best base stealers aren't going on every pitch. You can see a post of mine above involving th risk/reward analysis and why what Lackey did even with a runner like Hamilton is a high risk/low reward move and therefore not a part of the game at upper levels.

 

I'll also admit that I first started using it after reading the question and answer from a Umpire manual years ago.

[mudvnine]

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.

Majordave, thanks for the cool down warning, I thought I was being polite, and respectful, but I must appreciate that there are different edicts of communication within the various communities of baseball...what or how I say something on the field to players and coaches, is certainly not the same way I can communicate it to an umpire.  Dually noted, apologies to any and all offended.

 

That said, I find this statement....

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.

....quite disconcerting from a moderator of an umpiring cite, and maybe part of the cause for my frustration.

 

I come here to get a logical, well thought out, consensus answer from a group of "professional" umpires, and what do I get from whom I would presume to be one of the senior members of the crew?  That the discussions "get hard, because they aren't easy to call or explain at higher levels?    

 

I can certainly appreciate that the application/enforcement of the balk rule(s) might be adjudicated differently at the various levels of play, but that shouldn't alter the generally accepted interpretation of the rules by the one asked to make such ruling determinations from them.

 

Maybe I'm asking or expecting too much, or maybe this is by nature not a site at which I should participate...being the orange in the apple bin kind of thing.

 

But if I do decide to make this my last post here, before parting, I do just want to say that....I most certainly do appreciate all that you guys do out on the field, in a position that for much of the time you're in a lose/lose situation.  

 

Make a call one way, and you have one coach blowing a gasket....had you made it the other, you simply have the other coach up in arms.  Not a position that most people would want to put themselves into, without an obvious love for what they do, and the game itself.  

 

I do recognize that, and respect and thank you guys for being willing to subject yourself to such inherent unpleasantness, and for your part in making the great game what it has been, and will be in the future.

 

 

Back to the coaches' office (or troll cave, whichever you prefer),

mud -

 

PS.  My apologies if that was again too longwinded or not properly paraphrased....what can I tell ya, "dumb coach". 

[grayhawk]

You really have been given a consensus answer to this question, but I think you have confused yourself along the way.  You're wrapped up in "intent" and the timing of the pitcher's move as compared to the runner's bluff (or his advance).  What we are saying is that those things are irrelevant.  It really is as simple as this:

 

1.  Are the pitcher's mechanics legal?

2.  Was a runner advancing or giving the impression of advancing to the unoccupied base?

 

That's it.

[Majordave]

@mudvnine

You're welcome. Some members came to me because your repeated questioning and disagreement with much of the discussion is what we regularly experience by Internet forum "trolls". )Those who come to the sites to stir up trouble and cause arguments. Kind of like computer hackers.). Very annoying to everyone but themselves and their sick sense of humor and value system.

On review, judging by your reply, you seem to be genuine. A bit disagreeable but not a troll. Sorry for your concern caused by some of my comments. I was a coach for 23 years. I coached my pitchers very demandingly. I sometimes met teams with coaches and pitchers who didn't seem to understand that their primary mission was to throw strikes. I also see it and notice it even more as an umpire. If a pitcher cannot throw consistent strikes everything else they do is a complete waste of everyone's time. Thus my comment.

Sorry if that offended you.

But, you've received some very good advice so far. Balks are hard for umpires. We often disagree. They take a lot of time to understand and when you work different rule sets of baseball there are things that are not balks in one set that are in another. So, take what you've gotten and apply as you see fit. If you haven't REALLY studied the rule book and case book for the level you coach please do that. You'll be a much better coach for it. But, beware that arguing rules too vehemently with an umpire will get you dumped. I learned this the hard way. I'm an umpire now principally because I had a run of less than competent umpires ruining my team's games. I'm not perfect and I kick calls sometimes but I am always striving to learn as much a I can, hustle as much as I can, work hard, have fun and get it right. It's been one of the best things I've ever done to become an umpire.

Good luck and thanks for asking.

[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.

 

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.

 

I guess I misinterpreted a step and a leg lift. 

 

But what defines a step "directly" to the base. If a pitcher is able to gain more than 45 degrees -- like a lefty -- I'd be fine allowing a pitcher to throw over in that case. Others might not. 

[mudvnine]

@mudvnine

You're welcome. Some members came to me because your repeated questioning and disagreement with much of the discussion is what we regularly experience by Internet forum "trolls". )Those who come to the sites to stir up trouble and cause arguments. Kind of like computer hackers.). Very annoying to everyone but themselves and their sick sense of humor and value system.

 

On review, judging by your reply, you seem to be genuine. A bit disagreeable but not a troll. Sorry for your concern caused by some of my comments. I was a coach for 23 years. I coached my pitchers very demandingly. I sometimes met teams with coaches and pitchers who didn't seem to understand that their primary mission was to throw strikes. I also see it and notice it even more as an umpire. If a pitcher cannot throw consistent strikes everything else they do is a complete waste of everyone's time. Thus my comment.

Well, thanks for recognizing I'm more coach than troll, I would have hoped my 40+ years coaching from the youth through HS level would have tipped the scales slightly in the coach favor, even if I did come off a little brash initially....type A personality, what can I say.   

 

Sorry if that offended you.

But, you've received some very good advice so far. Balks are hard for umpires. We often disagree. They take a lot of time to understand and when you work different rule sets of baseball there are things that are not balks in one set that are in another. So, take what you've gotten and apply as you see fit. If you haven't REALLY studied the rule book and case book for the level you coach please do that. You'll be a much better coach for it. But, beware that arguing rules too vehemently with an umpire will get you dumped.

 

 

No problem, I'm not easily offended...been doing this way too long to let a little disagreement on something so small get under my skin.  And not to worry, I treat umpires on the field far better than it might have come off here with my posts.  

 

I can truthfully say, that I've never once been "dumped" from a game at any level, have a great working relationship with 98% of the umpires I work with...even the ones I don't see eye-to-eye with on occasion....the other 2% are just hopeless, as I'm sure you've encountered in your 23 years in the coach's box, or as your partner on the field.

 

 

I learned this the hard way. I'm an umpire now principally because I had a run of less than competent umpires ruining my team's games. I'm not perfect and I kick calls sometimes but I am always striving to learn as much a I can, hustle as much as I can, work hard, have fun and get it right. It's been one of the best things I've ever done to become an umpire.

See, and I went the other way (kind of), I started umpiring when I was 13 at our local rec league, and continued to do so through college, and only stopped when coaching was becoming a much more time consuming venture than I had expected, and scheduling conflicts became too much of a problem.

 

But the "less than competent umpires" that you speak of, is one reason I push so vehemently to try to get a definitive answer from those here on rules (the "balk" for instance) that I believe are a little bit more cut and dry, and easier to interpret than most make then, but from past coaching experiences, and what I'm reading here, I guess not everyone holds that to be true.

 

In just my personal opinion/experiences, the rules set forth at any level, are pretty easy to interpret, when the basic understanding, and reason for them is taken into consideration with regard to the overall spirit of the game.  Thus the IFF rule discussion that I participated in earlier, and the balk rules here, seem to be easier to explain one's interpretation of them, but apparently I'm alone in that opinion....and that's fine by me.

 

Good luck and thanks for asking.

Thank you for your patience, and understanding of the situation.....and for not "ejecting" me from the board for "arguing" with the other umpires. 

 

 

All the best,

mud -

[mudvnine]

OK gentlemen, now that we've dispensed with the niceties, let's get back to this "when is a pitcher "committed" to deliver the ball to the batter from the Set Position?" question/discussion

 

I've stated/"argued" it is when F1 lifts his non-pivot foot/knee to a point that it is physically impossible to throw to a base behind him (1B in the case of a RHed F1 for instance), while others have said that it is not until his non-pivot "knee makes ground to the plate", he creates "momentum to the plate", or "until he steps towards HP".

 

Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong....what are you going to say to me when I come out to talk to you about why you just "balked" my F1 when he lifts his knee straight up, and pauses at the top of his balance position for a second or two, in order to see what the runner is doing.

 

It certainly can't be the "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" part of 8.01(b), because then I'm going to say...."But you just told me he's not committed to deliver the ball to the batter until his non-pivot knee "makes ground to the plate", or he has some "momentum to the plate", or "until he steps towards HP", and he's clearly not done any of that yet".

 

OK, so I'm standing next to you on the field, hands tugged in my back pockets, staring at the ground in front of me, intently listening to what you're going to say....so what explanation/response do I hear to that?

 

 

Thanks,

mud -

[grayhawk]

I'd say, "start/stop."

[scrounge]

He started and stopped, the rest doesn't matter, no matter how many quotes/quotation marks/veiled insults you throw in....

[mudvnine]

What did he start and stop?

[grayhawk]

If he raises his free foot to the balance point and freezes like a statue, wouldn't you say that is an "interruption?"

 

It's a no-brainer start/stop balk.  I can't figure out why you are pressing this.

[MooseLoop]

. . .   "when is a pitcher "committed" to deliver the ball to the batter from the Set Position?"   . . .

 

I've stated/"argued" it is when F1 lifts his non-pivot foot/knee to a point that it is physically impossible to throw to a base behind him (1B in the case of a RHed F1 for instance), while others have said that it is not until his non-pivot "knee makes ground to the plate", he creates "momentum to the plate", or "until he steps towards HP".

 

Let's assume you're correct and I'm wrong....what are you going to say to me when I come out to talk to you about why you just "balked" my F1 when he lifts his knee straight up, and pauses at the top of his balance position for a second or two, in order to see what the runner is doing.

 

It certainly can't be the "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" part of 8.01(b), because then I'm going to say...."But you just told me he's not committed to deliver the ball to the batter until his non-pivot knee "makes ground to the plate", or he has some "momentum to the plate", or "until he steps towards HP", and he's clearly not done any of that yet".

 

OK, so I'm standing next to you on the field, hands tugged in my back pockets, staring at the ground in front of me, intently listening to what you're going to say....so what explanation/response do I hear to that?

 

 

Thanks,

mud -

 

What "natural motion" commits a pitcher to pitch?  The rule implies umpire judgment, but like most rules, that judgment is informed by accepted interpretations.

 

After watching the Jim Evans balk video (highly recommended), I had concluded that no commitment to pitch occurred until some part of the pitcher's body (head, shoulder, hip, knee, foot) moved toward home.  I let RHPs lift their leg to the balance point (without pausing/stopping, of course), then step and throw to first.  After a discussion about this last year on this site, I concluded that I was wrong.

 

The consensus was that once RHP lifts his foot, unless it is moving immediately toward first for a throw, RHP is precluded from throwing to first.  The rationale was that once RHP lifts his leg toward the balance point, it is not possible to step to first without first moving toward the plate.

 

A significant minority thought that any lifting of the foot precludes RHP from going to first, that a jump step was required.

 

I still like my original interpretation, but I enforce the consensus interpretation in my games.

[mudvnine]

Let me just answer this....

 

If he raises his free foot to the balance point and freezes like a statue, wouldn't you say that is an "interruption?"

 

It's a no-brainer start/stop balk.  I can't figure out why you are pressing this.

 

 

....with this bold below.....

What "natural motion" commits a pitcher to pitch?  The rule implies umpire judgment, but like most rules, that judgment is informed by accepted interpretations.

 

After watching the Jim Evans balk video (highly recommended), I had concluded that no commitment to pitch occurred until some part of the pitcher's body (head, shoulder, hip, knee, foot) moved toward home.  I let RHPs lift their leg to the balance point (without pausing/stopping, of course), then step and throw to first.  After a discussion about this last year on this site, I concluded that I was wrong.

 

The consensus was that once RHP lifts his foot, unless it is moving immediately toward first for a throw, RHP is precluded from throwing to first.  The rationale was that once RHP lifts his leg toward the balance point, it is not possible to step to first without first moving toward the plate.

....which I believe is 100% correct, as I asked/stated two days ago.  

 

If you are in agreement with the bold, than I am in 100% in agreement that F1 has started his delivery of the ball to the batter, which commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption per 8.01(b), and therefore a "pause" at the balance point would be a "stop" or "interruption" of that "started" motion ("start/stop").

 

However, if the bold is the interpretation you're using, then that same leg lift, also precludes a RHP from then turning to throw to an unoccupied 2B for the purpose of making a play if R1 takes off just after RHP begins that lift...as that too would be an alteration or interruption of his delivery of the ball to the batter, which he is now "committed" to per the rules, and should therefore constitute a "balk" ruling as well.  No? 

 

This now just brings us full circle to why I'm simply trying to get a definitive interpretation from the group here, as to where, how, and when an F1 can move/throw once in the "Set Position", and how that all pertains to this "new move" that has suddenly popped up....as it can/will possibly change how I go about instructing my runners and/or pitchers to take full advantage of that if the bold above and/or my assertions drawn from it are not correct.

 

For the record:  Let me just apologize up front, if any of that came off sounding as a "veiled insult", as that was not my intention...nor has it ever been my intention at any other time during this discussion.  

 

 

mud -

[noumpere]

Against my better judgment....

 

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second.  All of those require a step.  When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

[grayhawk]

Against my better judgment....

 

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second.  All of those require a step.  When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

 

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^  I will add that the throw to third, or the throw/feint to second are legal if those bases are occupied, OR if unoccupied and a runner is advancing there, or giving the impression that he is advancing there.

[MooseLoop]

Against my better judgment....

 

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second.  All of those require a step.  When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

 

I know this is the accepted interpretation.  Can anyone provide a rationale based on rule language for why stepping and throwing to first after an RH F1 leg lift is a balk, but an RH F1 leg lift followed by a counter-clockwise turn past first base and a step to second is not?  Or is it just conventional wisdom, long accepted, origin unknown? 

[mudvnine]

 

Against my better judgment....

 

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second.  All of those require a step.  When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

 

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^  I will add that the throw to third, or the throw/feint to second are legal if those bases are occupied, OR if unoccupied and a runner is advancing there, or giving the impression that he is advancing there.

 

OK everyone, I'm fine with accepting that if that is the consensus here, but let me make sure I'm 100% clear here on what you're all saying/allowing/calling.

 

So if I instruct my RHPs to slooowly lift their leg towards their balance point, and at any time on the way up (even late, almost to, but not quite at the top), R1 breaks for 2B...you're going to let my RHP make an "inside" turn, and throw to 2B to easily retire R1 without balking him?  

[grayhawk]

Against my better judgment....

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second. All of those require a step. When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^ I will add that the throw to third, or the throw/feint to second are legal if those bases are occupied, OR if unoccupied and a runner is advancing there, or giving the impression that he is advancing there.

OK everyone, I'm fine with accepting that if that is the consensus here, but let me make sure I'm 100% clear here on what you're all saying/allowing/calling.

So if I instruct my RHPs to slooowly lift their leg towards their balance point, and at any time on the way up (even late, almost to, but not quite at the top), R1 breaks for 2B...you're going to let my RHP make an "inside" turn, and throw to 2B to easily retire R1 without balking him?

Yup. If he can pull this off, then kudos. It's harder than you think.

[mudvnine]

 

 

 

Against my better judgment....

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second. All of those require a step. When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^^ I will add that the throw to third, or the throw/feint to second are legal if those bases are occupied, OR if unoccupied and a runner is advancing there, or giving the impression that he is advancing there.

 

OK everyone, I'm fine with accepting that if that is the consensus here, but let me make sure I'm 100% clear here on what you're all saying/allowing/calling.

So if I instruct my RHPs to slooowly lift their leg towards their balance point, and at any time on the way up (even late, almost to, but not quite at the top), R1 breaks for 2B...you're going to let my RHP make an "inside" turn, and throw to 2B to easily retire R1 without balking him?

 

Yup. If he can pull this off, then kudos. It's harder than you think.

 

No, not at all....see in all the time with an R2 in place at HS and below (many times too often for my liking, but whatever, that's just me). Simple "inside move" or "spaghetti move" as it's sometimes called at the lower levels, easily accomplished by most kids 12 and up.  But this whole conversation is interesting to say the least.  I'm going to have to begin asking this question specifically to our game umpires.  

 

You may have just suggested a method of stopping anyone from ever running on our F1s again.  There will no longer be any need for the "slide step", as we can easily teach a slow lift of a leg for our RHPs, and simply have them listen for "RUNNER!!" on their way up...then "inside move" and easily throw him out should he hear that from F3.

 

If so, "Thank You!!" in advance, I definitely have a little more checking to do.  But if this is also the consensus of the umpires I work with, you/we may have just changed the game as we know it....at least at the HS level.  

[grayhawk]

It's hard for a pitcher to focus on two things at once. If they go to the balance point every time with the possibility of either pitching or using an inside move on a stealing R1, I would be shocked if their ability to throw strikes isn't significantly impacted.

Pitching takes focus, and giving them another task in the middle of their motion will reduce their focus on job #1 - throwing effective pitches.

[MooseLoop]

I just re-read this thread, and boy does my head hurt.  Mud, you are difficult to translate.

 

What does "inside move" mean?  Is it restricted to an RH F1 turning clockwise (viewed from above) past third to step to second?  If so, then the knee (or any other body part) at the balance point would not move to home and not commit the pitcher to pitch.  If the pitcher turns counter-clockwise (i.e., past first), then the knee would necessarily move toward home.  Would this commit the RH F1 to pitch? 

 

I'll leave the slidestep v. slow leg raise question to coaches.

[noumpere]

 

Against my better judgment....

 

When RH F1 lifts his leg, he has committed to pitch OR to throw to third OR to throw to second OR to feint toward second.  All of those require a step.  When he stops, he has done none of the things he's committed to doing.

 

I know this is the accepted interpretation.  Can anyone provide a rationale based on rule language for why stepping and throwing to first after an RH F1 leg lift is a balk, but an RH F1 leg lift followed by a counter-clockwise turn past first base and a step to second is not?  Or is it just conventional wisdom, long accepted, origin unknown? 

 

If RH F1 lifts the leg and then turns CCW (to his left) to throw to second, that's a balk.

 

If he just turns to second (without lifting the leg toward the balance point first), that's legal -- and I think there's a comment in the rules about that.  Probably because some pre-incarnation of coach mud made a big issue of it. 

[mudvnine]

No worries on my part with it effecting their accuracy....like I said, many/most already do it now with an R2, with as good, if not better mechanics than with just an R1.

 

This is because they don't have to change their rhythm as they do now with various R1s, from a longer/slower more comfortable leg lift with runners they don't anticipate running on them, to them having to rush/hurry with the "slide step" when the more speedy R1s are on base.  What you state will become able to be much more consistent with their rhythm, and thus improve their overall strike efficiency..

 

I can also work with them now with this slower delivery mechanic(s) to actually get more coil/load around or into their pivot leg for more push out of it, as they can now think about turning their hips closed further and more deliberately, to allow their non-pivot leg to swing past the pitcher's plate, and R1 will be subjected to just stand there and watch, until that non-pivot leg gets past pitcher's plate....which by then will be way too late to attempt a steal.

 

Like I said earlier, I look for advantages wherever I can find them, and if this is truly the case with the balk interpretation(s), than there's going to be a whole new way of doing business with my RHPs....if what you state is the consensus of the forum, and more importantly the umpiring association working our games.

 

But thank you for making me delve deeper into what I guess I took for granted, because I've never actually seen it interpreted in the manner you're describing....or at least taken advantage of the way I'm mentioning if that is the case.