Jump to content
  • 0
Sign in to follow this  
Guest Jack

Balk

Question

Guest Jack

R1, F1 in set. F1 steps directly towards 1B, throws to F3 with non pivot foot, but his pivot doesn't disconnect from rubber after the throw. Balk or not and why please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

21 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
17 minutes ago, Guest Jack said:

R1, F1 in set. F1 steps directly towards 1B, throws to F3 with non pivot foot, but his pivot doesn't disconnect from rubber after the throw. Balk or not and why please.

No, because there's no rule against it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, Matt said:

No, because there's no rule against it. 

There is actually a rule that says he can do that: 

5.07(a)( 2): “.........,.From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base.......”

But of course it’s best to ask what rule prevents it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
10 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

There is actually a rule that says he can do that: 

5.07(a)( 2): “.........,.From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base.......”

But of course it’s best to ask what rule prevents it. 

As I read it, the question concerns not the step to 1B but leaving the pivot in contact. No rule requires that it come off the rubber, so it's legal to remain in contact (though it sounds awkward).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, maven said:

As I read it, the question concerns not the step to 1B but leaving the pivot in contact. No rule requires that it come off the rubber, so it's legal to remain in contact (though it sounds awkward).

That's what I was reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, maven said:

As I read it, the question concerns not the step to 1B but leaving the pivot in contact. No rule requires that it come off the rubber, so it's legal to remain in contact (though it sounds awkward).

So the OP is asking if the pivot foot must disengage after the step and throw?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The move described on the OP used to be the common way of making a throw to first.  Then, someone "invented" the jab step (and  the jump turn).  That was technically illegal by rule (the pitcher didn't deliver a pitch, throw to a base or disengage by stepping backwards off the rubber) but was allowed by interp.  Now, since "everyone" uses the jab step, some are asking whether the move in the OP is illegal -- it looks strange to see someone do it, so it must  be illegal, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
Guest Va..-umpire

Of course Not, What 

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

The move described on the OP used to be the common way of making a throw to first.  Then, someone "invented" the jab step (and  the jump turn).  That was technically illegal by rule (the pitcher didn't deliver a pitch, throw to a base or disengage by stepping backwards off the rubber) but was allowed by interp.  Now, since "everyone" uses the jab step, some are asking whether the move in the OP is illegal -- it looks strange to see someone do it, so it must  be illegal, right?

A stupid made up question!

If there is no current rule about it, then it cannot be considered legal or illegal, play continues without any error.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The 3-1 move requires he disengages before feinting to1st. Just mentioning in case this is what the OPer is thinking of. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 hours ago, Guest Va..-umpire said:

Of course Not, What 

A stupid made up question!

If there is no current rule about it, then it cannot be considered legal or illegal, play continues without any error.

Huh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 7/18/2020 at 8:21 PM, maven said:

No rule requires that it come off the rubber, so it's legal to remain in contact (though it sounds awkward).

Well actually it is not.  It is a balk to be on the rubber without the ball, Now I realize we may be talking about a split second, five seconds or maybe he stays like that until the ball is thrown back.

“or he places his feet on or astride the pitcher’s plate, or positions himself within approximately five feet of the pitcher’s plate without ­having the ball.”

This question, like all balk questions really requires a video. But I can tell you that if he is on the rubber, and F3 has the ball, I'm calling a balk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
35 minutes ago, aaluck said:

Well actually it is not.  It is a balk to be on the rubber without the ball, Now I realize we may be talking about a split second, five seconds or maybe he stays like that until the ball is thrown back.

“or he places his feet on or astride the pitcher’s plate, or positions himself within approximately five feet of the pitcher’s plate without ­having the ball.”

This question, like all balk questions really requires a video. But I can tell you that if he is on the rubber and F3 has the ball I'm calling a balk.

Unless they've changed the interp on this, it applies when the defense is attempting a hidden ball trick, or the pitcher is trying to deceive the runner by making the runner think the pitcher has taken the rubber.  My advice is to NOT be over-technical on this as when the pitcher doesn't clear the rubber (including astride or within 5') after throwing the ball to F3 and is waiting for a return throw (and F3 hasn't pretended to throw the ball back and hides the ball in his glove....)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Unless they've changed the interp on this, it applies when the defense is attempting a hidden ball trick, or the pitcher is trying to deceive the runner by making the runner think the pitcher has taken the rubber.  My advice is to NOT be over-technical on this as when the pitcher doesn't clear the rubber (including astride or within 5') after throwing the ball to F3 and is waiting for a return throw (and F3 hasn't pretended to throw the ball back and hides the ball in his glove....)

No argument here.

BUT if the pitcher is standing there on the rubber waiting for the throw back I have a problem with that, because that indicates to everyone he already has the ball back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 minutes ago, aaluck said:

No argument here.

BUT if the pitcher is standing there on the rubber waiting for the throw back I have a problem with that, because that indicates to everyone he already has the ball back.

If he;s facing the catcher or turned away from F3 pretending to fiddle with something in his glove, or ... -- possibly (and maybe probably); it also depends on what F3 might be doing.

 

But if he's facing F3 with his glove up (indicating "throw me the ball"0)(and that's how I interpret your "waiting for the throw back") -- then (almost) never would this be a balk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, aaluck said:

Well actually it is not.  It is a balk to be on the rubber without the ball, Now I realize we may be talking about a split second, five seconds or maybe he stays like that until the ball is thrown back.

“or he places his feet on or astride the pitcher’s plate, or positions himself within approximately five feet of the pitcher’s plate without ­having the ball.”

This question, like all balk questions really requires a video. But I can tell you that if he is on the rubber, and F3 has the ball, I'm calling a balk.

Too bad Carl is no longer with us, because he could start the fourth installment of "Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 minutes ago, Matt said:

Too bad Carl is no longer with us, because he could start the fourth installment of "Ways to Ruin a Baseball Game."

I take it Carl wasn't big on enforcing the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, aaluck said:

I take it Carl wasn't big on enforcing the rules.

Are you aware of whom I was referring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
6 minutes ago, Mad Mike said:

@aaluck, you should ready the linked article below........

Thank you. Good read. I had no idea who he was.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

2019 OBR rule

6.02 Pitcher Illegal Action

(a) Balks

If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when:

(9) The pitcher, without having the ball, stands on or astride the pitcher’s plate or while off the plate, he feints a pitch;

Here’s what the 2013 Wendelstedt Rules and Interpretations Manual advises about this rule—

“This rule should be enforced only if the pitcher stands on or over the rubber without the ball while attempting to commit the ‘hidden ball trick.’”

This advice is highlighted in a separate block of text labeled Harry’s Hints so I am pretty sure he meant it. And Mr. noumpere offered this advice earlier--

Unless they've changed the interp on this, it applies when the defense is attempting a hidden ball trick, or the pitcher is trying to deceive the runner by making the runner think the pitcher has taken the rubber.  My advice is to NOT be over-technical on this as when the pitcher doesn't clear the rubber (including astride or within 5') after throwing the ball to F3 and is waiting for a return throw (and F3 hasn't pretended to throw the ball back and hides the ball in his glove....)

Really good advice, Mr. noumpere.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...