Vicinity balk @ 2B

[conbo61]

MSBL game (OBR), runner on 2B.  Pitcher turns and throws to F4 who is NOT near the bag.  Offensive dugout starts chirping that this is a balk.

However in the Wendelstedt Rules Manual:

"The "step and feint" requirement does not require a throw, except for first base¹.  Once a pitcher steps in a feint towards a base (other than first), he has fulfilled his requirements as a pitcher.  He may then throw the ball to anywhere on the field without taking another step, except to another base."

So, based on my understanding the throw to F4 WAS legal.  The vicinity balk only applies to 1B and 3B.

Is this correct?

1 - this is no longer true with the rule change in 2014.  Old version of WRM. Wonder when an update will be available.

[johnnyg08]

Nice job using the rule book to solve a problem. 

[maineump]

Good call - you are correct

[ZebraStripes]

My partner called a balk on one like this over the weekend.  F1 does an inside move and throws to a surprised F4 who was at double play depth.  Fed rules.  

[maven]

The mistake is to think that a feint cannot involve a throw. Once we remember that the rule permits F1 to feint a throw to 2B, it's clearer that throwing to F4 away from the base is feinting a throw to the base.

IOW, there are 2 legal ways to feint a throw to 2B: by pretending to throw but not throwing (perhaps more common), and by throwing but not to the base (legal if preceded by a step toward 2B).

[conbo61]

@ZebraStripes - Are you referring to 6.2.2.Delaying the Game 

 "Delay of the game includes:

a. throwing to any player other than the catcher, when the batter is in the ­batter's box, unless it is an attempt to retire a runner;"

Fed only calls for a warning followed by an ejection if it happens again.

I do not see anything about the vicinity balk in the balks section (6.2.4).

I'll be candid, I did not call a balk because of certainty, but rather uncertainty.  I KNEW it applied to 1B, but was not sure about 2B.  It was AFTER the game that I completed this research.

It does appear that I could have warned for Delay of Game (Rule 6.02(a)(8)(2015) commentary), but that is about it.

[grayhawk]

My partner called a balk on one like this over the weekend.  F1 does an inside move and throws to a surprised F4 who was at double play depth.  Fed rules.  

​He was wrong to do so.  Did you attempt to help him correct his misapplication of the rules?

[ZebraStripes]

​He was wrong to do so.  Did you attempt to help him correct his misapplication of the rules?

​As I am only a rec and travel ball umpire, I didn't think I had much of a case to correct a high school and college umpire.  My no call was from BU.

Edited May 26, 2015 by ZebraStripes

[grayhawk]

​As I am only a rec and travel ball umpire, I didn't think I had much of a case to correct a high school and college umpire.  My no call was from BU.

​I understand your reluctance to correct a more senior umpire.  In certain situations, it can be a career-limiting move. 

[Senor Azul]

From the 2014 PBUC (paragraph 8.5a p. 90):

There is no violation if a pitcher attempts a pickoff at second base and seeing no fielder covering the bag, throws to the shortstop or second baseman, neither of whom is in the vicinity of the bag nor is making an actual attempt to retire the runner.

The MLBUM has the identical language in it .

[clasonater]

Applying a warning for a delay of game for this situation may lead to problems.  Especially if the second baseman had no clue what the hell was going on.  Its like the Pirates of the Caribbean saying: "The code is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules." 

[Richvee]

​He was wrong to do so.  Did you attempt to help him correct his misapplication of the rules?

​Tell this to the NJ state test writers who had this exact play as a question this year on the state test and claim it's a balk. My arguments fell on deaf ears. 

[Kevin_K]

​Tell this to the NJ state test writers who had this exact play as a question this year on the state test and claim it's a balk. My arguments fell on deaf ears. 

​As did mine!

[zoops]

This is one that many seem to think is a balk.  I had this play happen a couple days ago and the OC of course wanted a balk but he is pretty respectful of my knowledge of the rules so once I explained it he let it go.  A friend of mine in another state called me a few weeks ago about this play and said that some guys in his association that work a lot of college ball up to D1 told him it's a balk.  I've heard an argument that it is throwing to an unoccupied base, and I don't have a great answer to that (how exactly would you consider it feinting to 2nd if the 2nd baseman is almost as close to 1st as he is to 2nd when he catches the throw?).  Is there any rule set that would support a balk?  

[noumpere]

15 minutes ago, zoops said:

This is one that many seem to think is a balk.  I had this play happen a couple days ago and the OC of course wanted a balk but he is pretty respectful of my knowledge of the rules so once I explained it he let it go.  A friend of mine in another state called me a few weeks ago about this play and said that some guys in his association that work a lot of college ball up to D1 told him it's a balk.  I've heard an argument that it is throwing to an unoccupied base, and I don't have a great answer to that (how exactly would you consider it feinting to 2nd if the 2nd baseman is almost as close to 1st as he is to 2nd when he catches the throw?).  Is there any rule set that would support a balk?  

No rules set considers this a balk as long as F4 (or F6) is closer to second than to first (or third).

 

There are lots of "some guys" who don't know the rule.

[Jimurray]

17 minutes ago, zoops said:

This is one that many seem to think is a balk.  I had this play happen a couple days ago and the OC of course wanted a balk but he is pretty respectful of my knowledge of the rules so once I explained it he let it go.  A friend of mine in another state called me a few weeks ago about this play and said that some guys in his association that work a lot of college ball up to D1 told him it's a balk.  I've heard an argument that it is throwing to an unoccupied base, and I don't have a great answer to that (how exactly would you consider it feinting to 2nd if the 2nd baseman is almost as close to 1st as he is to 2nd when he catches the throw?).  Is there any rule set that would support a balk?  

No

[maven]

zombie thread

[UMP45]

On 5/26/2015 at 8:52 AM, ZebraStripes said:

My partner called a balk on one like this over the weekend.  F1 does an inside move and throws to a surprised F4 who was at double play depth.  Fed rules.  

This is not a balk in FED either.

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, maven said:

zombie thread

D'oh!  I hate that I contributed to it -- I checked the date and noticed the month and day (and even then considered not responding); didn't see the year.

[zoops]

I apologize for using the search function for a situation that's already been discussed and adding to it.  

[BT_Blue]

5 hours ago, maven said:

zombie thread

On the upside, he did add to the conversation with a legit question. It is better than someone just adding an answer of "no" or something like that.

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, BT_Blue said:

On the upside, he did add to the conversation with a legit question. It is better than someone just adding an answer of "no" or something like that.

Didn't "no" answer the question?

[BT_Blue]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

Didn't "no" answer the question?

It did. But I was more referring to the poster that reopened the thread.

I see no real issue with reopening a thread (even one that is 2 years old) as long as it is done with a legit question to add to the conversation. The ones that none of is like is when it is reopened by someone just rehashing the 100 answers before him.

Make more sense?

[Stk004]

21 hours ago, BT_Blue said:

It did. But I was more referring to the poster that reopened the thread.

I see no real issue with reopening a thread (even one that is 2 years old) as long as it is done with a legit question to add to the conversation. The ones that none of is like is when it is reopened by someone just rehashing the 100 answers before him.

Make more sense?

I'm with Arik on this one. We encourage people to use the search feature for "common" questions, and he had something valuable to contribute. 

On 5/26/2015 at 1:53 PM, grayhawk said:

I understand your reluctance to correct a more senior umpire.  In certain situations, it can be a career-limiting move. 

In other situations, when you do offer your knowledge and rules application to a senior umpire, they'll hit you with the "I'm going to overrule you" and there's just no response to that. Sure, you can plead your case, offer what you saw and repeat your rules knowledge, but you can't exactly break into an argument with your senior partner on the field. 

And, before you get on FED's case for making PU god-like (paging @MadMax), I was PU. And it was an OBR game. 

[ElkOil]

39 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

I'm with Arik on this one. We encourage people to use the search feature for "common" questions, and he had something valuable to contribute. 

In other situations, when you do offer your knowledge and rules application to a senior umpire, they'll hit you with the "I'm going to overrule you" and there's just no response to that. Sure, you can plead your case, offer what you saw and repeat your rules knowledge, but you can't exactly break into an argument with your senior partner on the field. 

And, before you get on FED's case for making PU god-like (paging @MadMax), I was PU. And it was an OBR game. 

Are you a god?