Pick off at 2nd

[JSam21]

There has been discussion about a play on a Facebook group and I wanted to get everyone's take on it.

 

R2. Outs irrelevant. NFHS rules

Pitcher in the set position and as he lifts his non-pivot foot the runner breaks for 3rd and the pitcher completely breaks the back plane of the rubber and then throws directly to 3rd to record the out.

I contend that a balk should be called on this play since the pitcher broke the back plane and did not throw or feint to 2nd or deliver a pitch. Others are saying that it doesn't matter and he can throw directly to 3rd.

What say you?

[Cav]

NFHS 6-2-4. Balk. 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:

f. failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in an attempt to put out a runner. [Emphasis mine.]

[scrounge]

Yes, indeed it is a balk if he doesn't either pitch or feint/throw to 2nd. 

 

But are you *sure* that entire foot completely broke that plane? From your angle at C, your positive it went back far enough to compensate for the parallax error and not one tiny bit of the foot was above the very back edge? If so...then it's a balk.

6-2...ART. 4 . . . Balk. 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:

f. failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in an attempt to put out a runner.

[noumpere]

While the specifics of how far the pitcher's foot must move vary by code, once the pitcher's foot has gone "too far" to second, it's a balk to throw to third in all codes.

[JSam21]

10 minutes ago, scrounge said:

Yes, indeed it is a balk if he doesn't either pitch or feint/throw to 2nd. 

 

But are you *sure* that entire foot completely broke that plane? From your angle at C, your positive it went back far enough to compensate for the parallax error and not one tiny bit of the foot was above the very back edge? If so...then it's a balk.

6-2...ART. 4 . . . Balk. 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:

f. failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in an attempt to put out a runner.

The OP on Facebook says it went completely over.

[maven]

And for those who want to argue that the foot going toward 2B counts as a feint, so now he can throw to 3B: remember that the requirement is to step and throw/feint to a base. It's not a legal feint until he sets the free foot down and gains distance and direction toward 2B.

[JSam21]

I was trying to bring up the question during the discussion of why would they allow this to happen when there was just a runner on 2nd and not allow it when there was a runner on 3rd. Only response I got was, "Well it is different."

[johnnyg08]

As described, it's a balk. The rule is very clear on that. 

In reality, it's very difficult to see in the two man system if his free foot was legal or not.

Is there a typo in the OP with respect to pivot foot vs free foot? 

[Kevin_K]

7 hours ago, JSam21 said:

There has been discussion about a play on a Facebook group and I wanted to get everyone's take on it.

 

R2. Outs irrelevant. NFHS rules

Pitcher in the set position and as he lifts his pivot foot the runner breaks for 3rd and the pitcher completely breaks the back plane of the rubber and then throws directly to 3rd to record the out.

I contend that a balk should be called on this play since the pitcher broke the back plane and did not throw or feint to 2nd or deliver a pitch. Others are saying that it doesn't matter and he can throw directly to 3rd.

What say you?

Do you mean non-pivot foot?

[ElkOil]

7 hours ago, JSam21 said:

There has been discussion about a play on a Facebook group and I wanted to get everyone's take on it.

 

R2. Outs irrelevant. NFHS rules

Pitcher in the set position and as he lifts his pivot foot the runner breaks for 3rd and the pitcher completely breaks the back plane of the rubber and then throws directly to 3rd to record the out.

I contend that a balk should be called on this play since the pitcher broke the back plane and did not throw or feint to 2nd or deliver a pitch. Others are saying that it doesn't matter and he can throw directly to 3rd.

What say you?

As you worded the scenario, this is not a balk, since the pitcher has properly disengaged the rubber by stepping off the back of it with his pivot foot. If you meant to say "non-pivot foot," this is a balk.

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, ElkOil said:

As you worded the scenario, this is not a balk, since the pitcher has properly disengaged the rubber by stepping off the back of it with his pivot foot. If you meant to say "non-pivot foot," this is a balk.

He hasn't legally disengaged until he places the foot on the ground behind the rubber. Just lifting it isn't enough.

[JSam21]

16 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

As described, it's a balk. The rule is very clear on that. 

In reality, it's very difficult to see in the two man system if his free foot was legal or not.

Is there a typo in the OP with respect to pivot foot vs free foot? 

yeah I goofed that

 

[ricka56]

As I envision this play, balking F1 on a stupid base running error, is like buying a pair of one-way tickets (for you and your partner) to Turdville.

[ElkOil]

3 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

As I envision this play, balking F1 on a stupid base running error, is like buying a pair of one-way tickets (for you and your partner) to Turdville.

Woot, woot! All aboard the poo-poo train!

[noumpere]

32 minutes ago, ricka56 said:

As I envision this play, balking F1 on a stupid base running error, is like buying a pair of one-way tickets (for you and your partner) to Turdville.

Disagree entirely.

R2 can get to third before the legal throw, or create a balk vs. the risk of being thrown out.  It's entirely possible that the coach (or R2) thought the trade-off was worth it.