stealing home

[Guest peter]

In the recent TB vs LA WS, TB attempted steal of home. Kershaw stepped off the rubber and through the ball right over the plate.   I assume that since the pitcher stepped off the rubber, the batter could not swing at the ball, but was he required to step out of the batter's box, as he did?

[maven]

That's correct. 

This question has been discussed in the forum already.

 

[beerguy55]

2 hours ago, Guest peter said:

but was he required to step out of the batter's box, as he did

No, he was not required to step out...he's simply required to not intentionally interfere with the play.

[Senor Azul]

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 7.3.5 Situation G:  With no outs and F1 in the set position, R3 attempts to steal home. F1 legally steps backward off the pitcher’s plate and throws home. B2 hits the ball. Ruling:  Typically, batter’s interference is a delayed dead ball in order to give the defense an opportunity to make an out on the initial putout attempt. Since the batter hit the ball, the defense was not afforded an opportunity to make a play. Therefore, the ball is declared dead immediately, R3 is out because of B2’s interference. (5-1-2a and dead ball table #25, 7-3-5, 8-4-2l)

NCAA rule 7-11v. If the batter hits, or attempts to hit, a throw made to home plate by the pitcher who is not in contact with the pitching rubber, and is attempting to retire a runner stealing home, interference shall be called and the ball is dead.

PENALTY for v.—With two outs, the batter is out. With fewer than two outs, the runner shall be out.

OBR rules the same as FED/NCAA.

[Guest NJ Coach]

what if the pitcher being off the rubber is less obvious and the batter swings ?  say he's 6 inches in front of the  rubber in his usual set stance and the batter isn't aware of this ?  is this a balk ?

[Replacematt]

16 minutes ago, Guest NJ Coach said:

what if the pitcher being off the rubber is less obvious and the batter swings ?  say he's 6 inches in front of the  rubber in his usual set stance and the batter isn't aware of this ?  is this a balk ?

Nope. 

[JSam21]

On 11/4/2020 at 8:06 PM, Matt said:

Nope. 

Well... maybe. Wouldn’t F1 have to disengage to the rear not forward?

[Rich Ives]

On 11/4/2020 at 9:06 PM, Matt said:

Nope. 

Why not? . Couldn't get to set without making a motion

7) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with
his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate;

[Replacematt]

15 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

Why not? . Couldn't get to set without making a motion

7) The pitcher makes any motion naturally associated with
his pitch while he is not touching the pitcher’s plate;

The set, or anything preceding it, is not a motion to pitch. 

[Replacematt]

40 minutes ago, JSam21 said:

Well... maybe. Wouldn’t F1 have to disengage to the rear not forward?

The question said nothing about disengaging. If he did, then you are correct. 

[Rich Ives]

34 minutes ago, Matt said:

The set, or anything preceding it, is not a motion to pitch. 

How to you get to set? It's a pitching motion. You can  get balked tor starting then stopping. Not a continuous motion.

 

Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have
one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set
position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and
in one continuous motion.

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, Rich Ives said:

How to you get to set? It's a pitching motion. You can  get balked tor starting then stopping. Not a continuous motion.

 

Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have
one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set
position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and
in one continuous motion.

Despite what you keep saying, it isn't. 

Is a pitcher compelled to pitch if he comes set? Nope. It's not a pitching motion until a pitcher is actually pitching.

[maven]

8 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

How to you get to set? It's a pitching motion. You can  get balked tor starting then stopping. Not a continuous motion.

 

Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have
one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set
position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and
in one continuous motion.

You're conflating two distinct restrictions.

One restriction governs how F1 comes set (the one you're quoting here). The other is starting to pitch and then failing to deliver.

"Start/stop" is ambiguous between the two, which is convenient and simplifies for coaches, who often struggle to understand the rules.

If you're going to make coming set part of the pitching motion, why not taking the mound? Why not walking there from the dugout? He does those every time before he pitches, right? So they're part of his "habitual motion?"

The only rule relevant to the followup question ("less obvious that he's off the rubber") would be the standing astride rule, but the question makes it clear that F1 is in front of the rubber, not astride it.

Look, either F1 is on or off. If he's off, he's an infielder and not restricted by the pitching rules. This really isn't too difficult. Matt's responses are "habitually" on the terse side, but I didn't think this question would require more.

[Rich Ives]

4 hours ago, maven said:

You're conflating two distinct restrictions.

One restriction governs how F1 comes set (the one you're quoting here). The other is starting to pitch and then failing to deliver.

"Start/stop" is ambiguous between the two, which is convenient and simplifies for coaches, who often struggle to understand the rules.

If you're going to make coming set part of the pitching motion, why not taking the mound? Why not walking there from the dugout? He does those every time before he pitches, right? So they're part of his "habitual motion?"

The only rule relevant to the followup question ("less obvious that he's off the rubber") would be the standing astride rule, but the question makes it clear that F1 is in front of the rubber, not astride it.

Look, either F1 is on or off. If he's off, he's an infielder and not restricted by the pitching rules. This really isn't too difficult. Matt's responses are "habitually" on the terse side, but I didn't think this question would require more.

I have seen the start to come set then stop balked many times in  MLB.  

[Jimurray]

On 11/11/2020 at 11:00 AM, Rich Ives said:

I have seen the start to come set then stop balked many times in  MLB.  

There is no penalty in the rule for violating this provision of 5.07(a)(2): "Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and in one continuous motion."

But it is balked as cited in an Evans Interp as "common practice." I would also say that you could use a feint without a step to balk it. MLB seems to be very strict in balking it and if the pitcher steps off while coming set MLB umps perceive stepping off while coming set a stop of coming set and balk it. 

While I agree there is no pitching motion normally until coming set, at bush levels where a pitcher might look in for a sign while off the rubber, I do use the pitching motion rule to balk him if he simulates coming set while off the rubber.

[Replacematt]

38 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

There is no penalty in the rule for violating this provision of 5.07(a)(2): "Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set position as defined in Rule 5.07(a)(2) without interruption and in one continuous motion."

But it is balked as cited in an Evans Interp as "common practice." I would also say that you could use a feint without a step to balk it. MLB seems to be very strict in balking it and if the pitcher steps off while coming set MLB umps percieve stepping off while coming set a stop of coming set and balk it. 

While I agree there is no pitching motion normally until coming set, at bush levels where a pitcher might look in for a sign while off the rubber, I do use the pitching motion rule to balk him if he simulates coming set while off the rubber.

And you would be wrong. 

[Jimurray]

50 minutes ago, Matt said:

And you would be wrong. 

So the bumpkin tries the trick his coach suggests to straddle the rubber and come set to see if the runner will fall for it and take a lead while the pitcher can then throw without the balk retrictions. I usually call the balk as he straightens up and puts hands together but I will now wait because the next thing that usually happens is the pitcher separates his hands to throw or feint at the runner. Now we actually have a motion that is associated with his pitch while off the rubber. 

[Replacematt]

30 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

So the bumpkin tries the trick his coach suggests to straddle the rubber and come set to see if the runner will fall for it and take a lead while the pitcher can then throw without the balk retrictions. I usually call the balk as he straightens up and puts hands together but I will now wait because the next thing that usually happens is the pitcher separates his hands to throw or feint at the runner. Now we actually have a motion that is associated with his pitch while off the rubber. 

You just said that he separated his hands to throw or feint. Per the rule itself, those are not motions to pitch. This is legal. 

[agdz59]

15 hours ago, Matt said:

You just said that he separated his hands to throw or feint. Per the rule itself, those are not motions to pitch. This is legal. 

I usually call NFHS. Is there a case specific to coming set while straddling the rubber?  Because I interpret the set as part of "the pitch" as distinct from "the delivery" which are both mentioned in different parts of the pitching rule. And since 6-2-5 says its illegal "while he is not touching the pitcher's plate, makes any movement naturally associated with his pitch", I'm calling a balk.  There is clear intent to deceive the runner by making motions associated with his pitch while not in contact with the rubber..

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, agdz59 said:

I usually call NFHS. Is there a case specific to coming set while straddling the rubber?  Because I interpret the set as part of "the pitch" as distinct from "the delivery" which are both mentioned in different parts of the pitching rule. And since 6-2-5 says its illegal "while he is not touching the pitcher's plate, makes any movement naturally associated with his pitch", I'm calling a balk.  There is clear intent to deceive the runner by making motions associated with his pitch while not in contact with the rubber..

Intent does not define a balk. The set is not part of the pitch. 

This is why the rubber exists. If the offense is doing what they are supposed to, the pitcher is just wasting time. 

[Senor Azul]

Ordinarily I like to have at least two different sources to support my opposing view of some issue being discussed here. But there is surprisingly little written about the topic of a pitcher pretending to be a pitcher. So far I only have one reference that actually spells out that a pitcher cannot fake a pitching position and it is from the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (chapter 18, p. 149):

It is a balk if a pitcher who is NOT in-contact:

Has the ball and tries to deceive a runner by using a motion obviously associated with a pitch or pitching position. [6.02(a)(7)]

I think this authoritative opinion aligns perfectly with the original intent of the rule. You see, before 1898 pitchers pretty much did whatever they please to hold and/or pick off runners--they could even pantomime their whole pitching routine. The intent of the rule was to prohibit the pitcher from pretending to be the pitcher and deceiving the runner when he was off the rubber. Here is how it first appeared in the rule book--

1898 rule 32. Balking.

A Balk shall be:

Sec. 6. The making of any motion the pitcher habitually makes in his method of delivery, without his immediately delivering the ball to the bat.

[Senor Azul]

“Intent does not define a balk.”

That’s right but it certainly can be a factor in an umpire’s decision to call a balk. It is even spelled out in OBR in its rule 6.02 and its following comment--

2019 Rule 6.02(a) Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:

(A)   Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk…

Now, I realize that when Mr. agdz59 brought up the concept of intent he was asking about it in relation to FED rules so you (Mr. Sandpaper) may have meant only FED does not consider intent when calling a balk because it is not specifically referred to in its balk rules. But I can cite at least one instance I found online where a high school umpires association teaches its umpires to consider intent. In addition, it is taught to NCAA umpires as well and I can provide a reference to intent made in the College Baseball Rules Study Guide.

Also, could you expand a bit please what you meant about why the pitching rubber exists.

[Replacematt]

4 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

“Intent does not define a balk.”

That’s right but it certainly can be a factor in an umpire’s decision to call a balk. It is even spelled out in OBR in its rule 6.02 and its following comment--

2019 Rule 6.02(a ) Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:

(A)   Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk…

Now, I realize that when Mr. agdz59 brought up the concept of intent he was asking about it in relation to FED rules so you (Mr. Sandpaper) may have meant only FED does not consider intent when calling a balk because it is not specifically referred to in its balk rules. But I can cite at least one instance I found online where a high school umpires association teaches its umpires to consider intent. In addition, it is taught to NCAA umpires as well and I can provide a reference to intent made in the College Baseball Rules Study Guide.

Also, could you expand a bit please what you meant about why the pitching rubber exists.

Intent is not a factor in making a legal de jure move illegal. It can make a illegal de jure move legal. Thus, it's not relevant here, as the move has nothing proscribing it. Intent is never a factor (unless specified by rule) in making a decision to call a balk; it can only play a factor in making a decision not to call a balk.

I think my comment about the rubber was self-evident. A pitcher (absent other proscriptions) does not have certain limitations while not on the rubber. The offense is aware of when the pitcher is on the rubber and when they are not, and knows that the pitcher has fewer limitations on their acts. 

Also, your 1898 cite specifically refers to the pitcher's method of delivery, just as today's rule does. There is no visible intent there to prohibit anything but an actual motion to pitch. Even your incomplete J/R cite doesn't specifically address what we are discussing; and again, without anything to make it illegal, this is legal.

[Jimurray]

42 minutes ago, Matt said:

Intent is not a factor in making a legal de jure move illegal. It can make a illegal de jure move legal. Thus, it's not relevant here, as the move has nothing proscribing it. Intent is never a factor (unless specified by rule) in making a decision to call a balk; it can only play a factor in making a decision not to call a balk.

I think my comment about the rubber was self-evident. A pitcher (absent other proscriptions) does not have certain limitations while not on the rubber. The offense is aware of when the pitcher is on the rubber and when they are not, and knows that the pitcher has fewer limitations on their acts. 

Also, your 1898 cite specifically refers to the pitcher's method of delivery, just as today's rule does. There is no visible intent there to prohibit anything but an actual motion to pitch. Even your incomplete J/R cite doesn't specifically address what we are discussing; and again, without anything to make it illegal, this is legal.

“Has the ball and tries to deceive a runner by using a motion obviously associated with a pitch or pitching position.” 
That’s what I’m using in the rare bush league settings where it might happen. It just saves time. 

[Replacematt]

24 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

“Has the ball and tries to deceive a runner by using a motion obviously associated with a pitch or pitching position.” 
That’s what I’m using in the rare bush league settings where it might happen. It just saves time. 

And I feel if that interpretation is intended to mean that, it is not valid. (I'm not sold on the idea that it is intended to apply to this situation, absent the context of the passage.) There isn't anything that substantiates it and plenty of opportunities over history for evidence to have been created as such. 

[Senor Azul]

The set, or anything preceding it, is not a motion to pitch. 

It's not a pitching motion until a pitcher is actually pitching.

While I agree there is no pitching motion normally until coming set

If you're going to make coming set part of the pitching motion, why not taking the mound? 

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 6.1.3 Situation Q:  With a runner on first, Team A right-handed pitcher is in the set position, bent at the waist and his pitching arm naturally hangs down slightly in front or to the side away from his body. As he looks to the catcher for a signal, (a) the pitcher’s arm is stationary or (b) the pitching arm rocks slightly from side to side. RULING:  In (a), the position of the arm is natural and can be considered by his side in meeting the rule. Any movement would then start the pitch. In (b), any movement of the arm is considered the start of the pitching motion and a pitch must be delivered to the plate so this motion results in a balk.

2002 NFHS Baseball Rule Interpretations SITUATION 14: With a runner on first base, the right-handed pitcher is in the set position. The pitcher legally steps behind the pitcher’s plate with his pivot foot but then steps toward home as if he is delivering a pitch. He then pivots and throws to first base, picking off the runner. RULING: This is a balk. The ball is dead and the runner is awarded second base. The pitcher, while off the pitcher’s plate, is prohibited from making any movement naturally associated with his pitch. (2-3-1, 5-1-1k, 6-2-5)

From the 2018 Make the Right Call (the casebook of Little League Baseball)—

Rule 8.05(g) and (i) Situation:  With runners on first base and second base in a Little League Major division game, the pitcher is astride the pitcher’s plate while the first baseman has the ball. From here, the pitcher brings his/her hands together simulating the start of a pitch.

Ruling:  At the Little League Major division, and below, this is an illegal pitch and a ball will be awarded to the batter. At the Intermediate 50-70 division and above this is a balk.