Jump to content

"David Price rule" balks a POE for MLB this year

udbrky

By udbrky
in Rules

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3580 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

udbrky

udbrky

Posted
Posted

I was watching the Giants-A's game tonight and they were talking about a balk that was called in last night's game that they didn't understand. Dave Flemming recounted his discussion with Bill Miller before the game and said that it was a point of emphasis this year.

I can't find a video online about it. Chris Bassitt is in the stretch, foot on rubber. Brings his hands together. Then, he steps back with his front foot (Lefty, he moved it towards 3B), then delivers the pitch. It's almost like he goes into a windup after he's come set.

Here's a video with Price, but he moves it forward, then goes into his delivery.

http://m.mlb.com/video/v568503883/bospit-price-fans-five-holds-pirates-to-one-run

I can't recall ever seeing a pitcher do this in MLB.

  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

IMO this is one rule where FED's prohibition of the hybrid position pays off. If we allow F1 to put his free foot anywhere, we sometimes can't tell whether he's in the set or the windup based on his feet. They seem to be calling these balks when F1 stands in the set, pitches from the set, and then later in the same at-bat winds up from the same stance (or vice versa).

Allowing that gives F1 the advantage of holding runners as if he's in the set, but pitching to the batter as if he's winding up. And that's unfair (and the reason to prohibit the hybrid stance in the first place).

MLB is squeamish about fiddling with pitching rules (even more so than other rules), and I suspect that their discussions of this one aren't done yet.

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, maven said:

IMO this is one rule where FED's prohibition of the hybrid position pays off. If we allow F1 to put his free foot anywhere, we sometimes can't tell whether he's in the set or the windup based on his feet. They seem to be calling these balks when F1 stands in the set, pitches from the set, and then later in the same at-bat winds up from the same stance (or vice versa).

Allowing that gives F1 the advantage of holding runners as if he's in the set, but pitching to the batter as if he's winding up. And that's unfair (and the reason to prohibit the hybrid stance in the first place).

MLB is squeamish about fiddling with pitching rules (even more so than other rules), and I suspect that their discussions of this one aren't done yet.

I haven't seen one sideways pitcher yet that I couldn't tell was going to windup or come set. But, 1 MLB umpire was fooled. And the no windup from the windup quick pitch is problematic.

UMP45

UMP45

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I haven't seen one sideways pitcher yet that I couldn't tell was going to windup or come set. But, 1 MLB umpire was fooled. And the no windup from the windup quick pitch is problematic.

Who was the umpire?

 

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

The balk called the other night in the Giant's game and what the OP refers to is not the same as the windup/no windup, set/no stop confusion balk in the SD/Col.

What happened in the Giants/Oak game, and Flemming was talking about is this... Pitcher in an obvious SET position. Then with his free foot, takes a rocker step to the side as one would from a windup  before delivering the pitch. Obvious balk as far as I saw. It's a step to 1st (RHP) from the set prior to delivering the pitch)

The bigger issue for me, is, is this movement legal with no runners on in FED. Some say yes, some say it's a form of the hybrid once he takes that rocker step. 

udbrky

udbrky

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, I didn't think it was related to the other video. The Price was as close as I could get.

I thought it was an obvious balk, but didn't think I'd seen it before.

maven

maven

Posted
Posted
10 hours ago, Richvee said:

The balk called the other night in the Giant's game and what the OP refers to is not the same as the windup/no windup, set/no stop confusion balk in the SD/Col.

What happened in the Giants/Oak game, and Flemming was talking about is this... Pitcher in an obvious SET position. Then with his free foot, takes a rocker step to the side as one would from a windup  before delivering the pitch. Obvious balk as far as I saw. It's a step to 1st (RHP) from the set prior to delivering the pitch)

The bigger issue for me, is, is this movement legal with no runners on in FED. Some say yes, some say it's a form of the hybrid once he takes that rocker step. 

First, I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is winding up from the set not the same issue? It's the same one that concerns me.

As for FED, it is illegal to wind up from the set (that is, take a rocker step and then pitch to the batter), but not for the reason you mention. Once the motion has started, F1 cannot conceivably change stances: a stance is how he engages the rubber, is defined by the position of the feet, and has nothing to do with the motion (though it may constrain that motion).

The reason a "rocker step" followed by a pitch is illegal is that it constitutes a feint to 1B: it's a step (distance and direction) without a throw to the base.

To rule that this is legal because no rule explicitly prohibits a "rocker step" from the set is to misunderstand the purpose of having 2 stances. Pitchers gain an advantage over the batter in the windup, which allows for more variety and more deceptive pitching motions, as well as better leverage in the pitch. The set gives pitchers an advantage over runners, as it permits pickoff throws (in other codes, F1 may also pickoff from the windup, but it's awkward and less effective). The purpose of having 2 stances is to force the defense to select one set of advantages: they may have the advantage over the batter, or over the runners, but not both. To allow the rocker step in the set defeats that purpose.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, maven said:

First, I don't see the distinction you're trying to draw. How is winding up from the set not the same issue? It's the same one that concerns me.

The difference I thought was in Col/SD, F1, hands apart, free foot in front of the rubber, Makes a pitch with little to no windup. In SF the other night, F1 in a clear set position, stretches, comes set, then takes that rocker step to begin pitching. a cleat balk as we all agree.

As for FED, it is illegal to wind up from the set (that is, take a rocker step and then pitch to the batter), but not for the reason you mention. Once the motion has started, F1 cannot conceivably change stances: a stance is how he engages the rubber, is defined by the position of the feet, and has nothing to do with the motion (though it may constrain that motion).

The reason a "rocker step" followed by a pitch is illegal is that it constitutes a feint to 1B: it's a step (distance and direction) without a throw to the base.

Maybe I wasn't clear but I agree the rocker stepis a step to 1B.

To rule that this is legal because no rule explicitly prohibits a "rocker step" from the set is to misunderstand the purpose of having 2 stances. Pitchers gain an advantage over the batter in the windup, which allows for more variety and more deceptive pitching motions, as well as better leverage in the pitch. The set gives pitchers an advantage over runners, as it permits pick off throws (in other codes, F1 may also pickoff from the windup, but it's awkward and less effective). The purpose of having 2 stances is to force the defense to select one set of advantages: they may have the advantage over the batter, or over the runners, but not both. To allow the rocker step in the set defeats that purpose.

I agree with everything here. There was a thread last spring about this rocker step in FED and some were saying they believe it to be legal.  In a bit of a hurry now to search, but I believe KevinK started the thread.

Here endeth the lesson. :)

 

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, Richvee said:

The balk called the other night in the Giant's game and what the OP refers to is not the same as the windup/no windup, set/no stop confusion balk in the SD/Col.

What happened in the Giants/Oak game, and Flemming was talking about is this... Pitcher in an obvious SET position. Then with his free foot, takes a rocker step to the side as one would from a windup  before delivering the pitch. Obvious balk as far as I saw. It's a step to 1st (RHP) from the set prior to delivering the pitch)

The bigger issue for me, is, is this movement legal with no runners on in FED. Some say yes, some say it's a form of the hybrid once he takes that rocker step. 

Bassit was in an obvious SET SITUATION. R1 and he was setting and pitching as in the set. Then for some reason, with a 3-2 count, he did his normal sideways windup which involves what looks like coming set and and taking a small rocker step and was balked. With no runners he had been winding up like that. The question is if he was in a windup runner configuration, say bases loaded, would that delivery be balked? Last year it wouldn't. 

As to a rocker step with a sideways pitcher being a step without a throw I don't buy it. It's a backwards step. Are we saying a sideways RHP is balked to 1B for one reason and a sideways LHP is balked for a different reason. What about a normal windup pitcher who takes a backwards rocker step to 2B with bases loaded. Or a normal facing pitcher who rotates and takes his rocker step toward 1B as he repositions his pivot foot. Balk with bases loaded?

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Bassit was in an obvious SET SITUATION. R1 and he was setting and pitching as in the set. Then for some reason, with a 3-2 count, he did his normal sideways windup which involves what looks like coming set and and taking a small rocker step and was balked. With no runners he had been winding up like that. The question is if he was in a windup runner configuration, say bases loaded, would that delivery be balked? Last year it wouldn't. 

As to a rocker step with a sideways pitcher being a step without a throw I don't buy it. It's a backwards step. Are we saying a sideways RHP is balked to 1B for one reason and a sideways LHP is balked for a different reason. What about a normal windup pitcher who takes a backwards rocker step to 2B with bases loaded. Or a normal facing pitcher who rotates and takes his rocker step toward 1B as he repositions his pivot foot. Balk with bases loaded?

Wait..So are you saying you don't think Bassit balked in the SF/Oak game?

I think this is becoming more and more of an issue as pitchers's windups and sets are becoming more difficult, if not impossible to tell apart.

my biggest concern still remains...we do not have a consensus for, in FED,with no runners on, F1 stretches and comes set...Can he take a rocker step before delivering a pitch?

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php?/topic/62059-set-windup-not-sure/#comment-269900

 

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Richvee said:

Wait..So are you saying you don't think Bassit balked in the SF/Oak game?

I think this is becoming more and more of an issue as pitchers's windups and sets are becoming more difficult, if not impossible to tell apart.

my biggest concern still remains...we do not have a consensus for, in FED,with no runners on, F1 stretches and comes set...Can he take a rocker step before delivering a pitch?

http://umpire-empire.com/index.php?/topic/62059-set-windup-not-sure/#comment-269900

 

That windup would not have been balked last year in obvious runner configurations where a windup might be used. Wendelstedt says it's allowed because it gives the runner an advantage. But maybe there is a new memo out. 

 

 

grayhawk

grayhawk

Posted
Posted

I had posted a thread about this early last year - probably in February - after a pitcher did the rocker step from the set position.  Be clear on this point - this is NOT the hybrid.  The hybrid is a STANCE, not a pitching mechanic.  The pitcher's feet indicate if he is in the windup, set, or neither (the hybrid).  In my case, and the the case of this OP, F1 is clearly in a legal set position.  Pivot foot completely in contact with, and parallel, to the pitcher's plate, with the free foot in front (towards the plate).  Taking the rocker step may be legal or illegal (nothing in the rules seems to prevent it with no runners), but it doesn't transform a legal set position (stance) into another stance.

The real question is what is a pitcher allowed to do from a legal set position with and without runners.  A rocker step from the set should be determined to be:

1.  A move that commits F1 to pitch (making it legal with or without runners)
2.  A step to a base (which means F1 can't then pitch after taking the step)
3.  Illegal from the set, with or without runners

My preference would be #3 for all rule sets.



 

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...