Third not covered on pick off

[Guest Ted H.]

In Sunday's KC vs. Red Sox game a Royal runner was on third. The pitcher, from the pitching plate, went to throw to third. Seeing the bag was not being covered, he threw to the third baseman who was well off the bag. I got major pushback from fans making the same call in an upper level youth game. I looked for the rule in MLB after the game and could not find it. Who can site the rule, or was the MLB umpire incorrect? Not interested in opinions, just written rule or interpretation. Thank you.

[Jimurray]

15 minutes ago, Guest Ted H. said:

In Sunday's KC vs. Red Sox game a Royal runner was on third. The pitcher, from the pitching plate, went to throw to third. Seeing the bag was not being covered, he threw to the third baseman who was well off the bag. I got major pushback from fans making the same call in an upper level youth game. I looked for the rule in MLB after the game and could not find it. Who can site the rule, or was the MLB umpire incorrect? Not interested in opinions, just written rule or interpretation. Thank you.

The balk is a violation of "6.02(a)(2) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;" A throw to a fielder not near the base or attempting to make a play is a failure to complete the throw. A throw directly to 1B without a fielder anywhere near complies with the rule and is not a balk but runners are probably going to advance anyway on the loose ball. Since you can feint to 2B with a runner we don't care where you throw the ball.

It's also covered as an interp in the MLBUM/MiLBUM.

[Senor Azul]

I agree with Mr. Jimurray that OBR rule 6.02(a)(2) is the correct rule. Obviously though the text of the rule says nothing about the fielder  having to be near enough to the runner to make a play--for that we rely on official interpretations and rule 6.02(a)(4) which tells us that a pitcher must be making a play when throwing to a base. A couple of those interpretations follow--

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 148)--It is a balk if a pitcher who is in-contact steps to first or third base…and throws to first or third baseman who, because of his distance from the base, is (or would have been) unable to try a tag against the runner at first or third base.

From the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.25, p. 117):

…In addition, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk if, while in contact with the rubber, he attempts a pickoff at first or third base and throws to the fielder who is either in front of or behind the base and obviously not making an attempt at retiring the runner…

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

I agree with Mr. Jimurray that OBR rule 6.02(a)(2) is the correct rule. Obviously though the text of the rule says nothing about the fielder  having to be near enough to the runner to make a play--for that we rely on official interpretations and rule 6.02(a)(4) which tells us that a pitcher must be making a play when throwing to a base. A couple of those interpretations follow--

From the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 148)--It is a balk if a pitcher who is in-contact steps to first or third base…and throws to first or third baseman who, because of his distance from the base, is (or would have been) unable to try a tag against the runner at first or third base.

From the 2021 Minor League Baseball Umpire Manual (section 6.25, p. 117):

…In addition, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk if, while in contact with the rubber, he attempts a pickoff at first or third base and throws to the fielder who is either in front of or behind the base and obviously not making an attempt at retiring the runner…

6.02(a)(4) refers to a unoccupied base. Your other cites are appreciated. While J/R and NFHS use distance to determine if there was a feint,   Jim Evans used umpire judgment to determine if a play/deke was on and a throw other to the base was not a balk. The last such balk in MLB, other than this one, was such a good deke that it was not recognized by the ump and was balked. 

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, Guest Ted H. said:

In Sunday's KC vs. Red Sox game a Royal runner was on third. The pitcher, from the pitching plate, went to throw to third. Seeing the bag was not being covered, he threw to the third baseman who was well off the bag. I got major pushback from fans making the same call in an upper level youth game. I looked for the rule in MLB after the game and could not find it. Who can site the rule, or was the MLB umpire incorrect? Not interested in opinions, just written rule or interpretation. Thank you.

If you league PROHIBITS a feint to third then any thorow must be to the base or to the fielder making a play.  If your league ALLOWS a feint to third, then the throw can be to the fielder away from the base.  In the MLB game, if the throw had been to F4 or F6 playing away from second the throw would be legal (assuming there was an R2, of course)

[maven]

1 hour ago, noumpere said:

If you league PROHIBITS a feint to third then any throw must be to the base or to the fielder making a play. 

Although I agree with this statement, I'll add a brief explanatory note.

The rule allows ONE option, not two. When feints to 3B are disallowed, the rule is just like that for 1B: it requires a throw to the base.

Where the fielder is not positioned at the base, the interpretation of a "throw to a base" gives us this criterion: if the fielder is close enough to make a play immediately on the returning runner, then the throw was "to the base." The paradigm play that's allowed is the set play, where F1 throws to the base and the fielder knows it's coming, moves to the base ahead of the throw, and immediately makes a tag attempt.

If he has to catch the ball and only then get over to the base, he's not in a position to make a play. That would be a balk.

There are borderline cases. I'd apply a sliding scale, enforcing more strictly at higher levels (HS varsity and up). In youth ball, if I ruled no balk on a borderline play, I'd warn the coach between innings (or in the moment, if I have to explain to the other coach).

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, Jimurray said:

6.02(a)(4) refers to a unoccupied base. Your other cites are appreciated. While J/R and NFHS use distance to determine if there was a feint,   Jim Evans used umpire judgment to determine if a play/deke was on and a throw other to the base was not a balk. The last such balk in MLB, other than this one, was such a good deke that it was not recognized by the ump and was balked. 

 

No.  The mythical "20 feet" was an example used in a case play and then abused, reiterated in the BRD, and inappropriately pummeled into the umpiring psyche.  20 feet is not a magic line that determines a feint.  It was the set-up in the case play.

[Jimurray]

19 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

No.  The mythical "20 feet" was an example used in a case play and then abused, reiterated in the BRD, and inappropriately pummeled into the umpiring psyche.  20 feet is not a magic line that determines a feint.  It was the set-up in the case play.

In NFHS it seems distance is the factor and the umpire would judge close enough to make a play whether or not a play was actually on. My take from Jim Evans video is that in OBR you judge whether a play was on no matter the distance.

 

[The Man in Blue]

2018 NFHS Baseball Case Book

6.2.4 SITUATION J: With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, he realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in his normal defensive position. F1 completes the throw without interruption. The coach of the offensive team wants a balk called on F1. RULING: As long as F3 is in the proximity of the base, F1 would not be guilty of a balk. Proximity is umpire judgment and is based on whether the fielder is close enough to the base to legitimately make a play on the runner.

@Jimurray -- Forgive me if you weren't going for that "magic 20 feet" that I hear people cite, but when you said "NFHS uses distance" that is what it sounded like to me.  It is no different than the Jim Evans interp where distance is not the key, whether the fielder has a legitimate play is the key (proximity/distance is a part of that consideration).

I thought the 20 feet was spelled out in the case play, but it appears I was wrong.  It must be specific to the BRD discussion on the topic.

[Jimurray]

12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

2018 NFHS Baseball Case Book

6.2.4 SITUATION J: With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, he realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in his normal defensive position. F1 completes the throw without interruption. The coach of the offensive team wants a balk called on F1. RULING: As long as F3 is in the proximity of the base, F1 would not be guilty of a balk. Proximity is umpire judgment and is based on whether the fielder is close enough to the base to legitimately make a play on the runner.

@Jimurray -- Forgive me if you weren't going for that "magic 20 feet" that I hear people cite, but when you said "NFHS uses distance" that is what it sounded like to me.  It is no different than the Jim Evans interp where distance is not the key, whether the fielder has a legitimate play is the key (proximity/distance is a part of that consideration).

I thought the 20 feet was spelled out in the case play, but it appears I was wrong.  It must be specific to the BRD discussion on the topic.

20 feet comes from here:

"2007 Interps

SITUATION 19: With R1 on first and no outs in a close game, the first baseman is playing about 20 feet in front of first base in case of a bunt attempt by B2. The pitcher, in the stretch position, throws to F3 in a pick-off attempt on R1. RULING: This is a balk. The first baseman is not in proximity of first base and is not close enough to legitimately make a play on the runner. The ball is dead and R1 is awarded second base. (6-2-4b)"

I disagree with @maven and would ask if he's seen Jim Evans Balk Video. Distance is not a criteria in OBR/MLB. A feint is judged by whether the umpire perceives a play which then is not a feint. But the last balk other than the OP which I remember was IMHO a feint/deke at 1B that Hickox balked because it was such a good deke, while close to the base, that Hickox didn't perceive it. Ed being in the news again lately.

[noumpere]

20 feet is just an example.  We don't know from the case play (or from anything else) whether 15' feet or 10' or 2 fathoms is "not in proximity."  Heck, if some team is trying some version of the skunk in the outfield play, 45' from first *might* be "in proximity"

It's similar to the interp where R1 "less than half way to second" is hit by the throw -- the interp says nothing about any distance less than that.

[beerguy55]

So the pitcher could throw to the base, even if F5 was 40 feet away, to avoid the balk...

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

So the pitcher could throw to the base, even if F5 was 40 feet away, to avoid the balk...

But he probably wouldn’t avoid runners advancing. 😊

[Velho]

Why does 2B get such special treatment?

[maven]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

Why does 2B get such special treatment?

Because stealing 3B is so much less common, so competitive balance does not require the more stringent measures.

You might point out that stealing HP is less common still. I'm guessing that the whole "3B is the new 1B" thing is more about not picking on LHP than competitive balance.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, maven said:

Because stealing 3B is so much less common, so competitive balance does not require the more stringent measures.

You might point out that stealing HP is less common still. I'm guessing that the whole "3B is the new 1B" thing is more about not picking on LHP than competitive balance.

I think it was to "speed up the game" by stopping those annoying (to some in power and some broadcasters) 3-1 feints the "never accomplish anything"

 

iow, it was a solution in search of a problem

[Velho]

On 8/18/2022 at 6:15 PM, maven said:

Because stealing 3B is so much less common, so competitive balance does not require the more stringent measures.

You might point out that stealing HP is less common still. I'm guessing that the whole "3B is the new 1B" thing is more about not picking on LHP than competitive balance.

On 8/18/2022 at 7:48 PM, noumpere said:

I think it was to "speed up the game" by stopping those annoying (to some in power and some broadcasters) 3-1 feints the "never accomplish anything"

iow, it was a solution in search of a problem

Thanks both. Yep, the googles show 2013 for those reasons (though MLB had to impose the change after the players association rejected it).

I'm curious about the idiosyncrasy. @Senor Azul Any thoughts on the history of when feints to 1B were disallowed (assuming that was the change and not that feints to 2B became legal).

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Velho,

In 1893 the current distance of 60 feet six inches from the pitcher’s plate to home plate was established. There were only three infractions listed as being a balk then so from 1893 to 1898 a pitcher could do almost anything his devious little mind could dream up to get runners out. Then in 1898 and 1899 the first of the balk rules we know today entered the rule book.

1898 rule 32  A Balk shall be:…

When the pitcher feigns to throw the ball to a base he must resume the above position and pause momentarily before delivering the ball to the bat.

If the pitcher fails to comply with the requirements of this rule the umpire must call “A balk.”

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.

Sec. 7. If the pitcher feigns to throw the ball to a base and does not resume his legal position and pause momentarily before delivering the ball to the bat.

1899 Rule 32 A Balk shall be:

Section 1. Any motion made by the pitcher to deliver the ball to the bat or to first base without delivering it.

Sec. 2. The throwing of the ball by the pitcher to any base to catch the base-runner without first stepping directly towards said base immediately before throwing the ball.

[maven]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

Any thoughts on the history of when feints to 1B were disallowed (assuming that was the change and not that feints to 2B became legal).

You didn't ask me, but the issue is competitive balance: it was too easy to keep runners at 1B from stealing when F1 could feint to that base.

[Senor Azul]

Of course it has always been a primary duty of any baseball rules committee to try to keep a balance between offense and defense. And I would say that if more offense was their objective then they accomplished their goal in 1899 when they made it a balk to feint a throw to first base. According to the book The Official Rules of Baseball Illustrated by David Nemec, the National League teams combined to steal nearly 600 more bases in 1899 than they had the previous season (thanks to the new balk rule).

[Velho]

Very interesting. Thank you much.

[noumpere]

I will add this from JEA (it's old, so ignore (or mentally adjust) the parts about being able to feint to bases other than first):

8.05(b) If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when the pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a
throw to first base and fails to complete the throw.

Cross References: 8.0l(a, b), 8.05(i), Appendix 31

Historical Notes: Pitching rules in the late 1800's permitted feints to all bases without penalty. In 1899, however,
that policy was changed and all feints to all bases were made illegal. That enforcement principle lasted only one
year. In 1900, the rule we use today was adopted. A pitcher may feint to any base from the rubber (except first
base) if he steps properly prior to the feint.

The 1950 rule which distinguished between the "set" and "wind-up" positions added the stipulation that the
pitcher must "step directly toward (the) base before making the throw." This direct step requirement applied to the
pitcher’s preliminary motions from both the wind-up and set positions. The prohibition against the "snap throw"
preceding the step was added as a casebook note in the early 1950's.

Customs and Usage: A pitcher may not feint a throw to 1st base, but he can feint a throw to other bases if he
steps legally.

The purpose of this rule is to allow a runner to get a practical lead. If feints were allowed, pitchers could hold
runners much closer at 1st base, and the offense would be stifled. The main purpose of the Balk Rule is to
encourage offense, not to stifle it.