Why is this a balk?

[Tog Gee]

This video should start at the 24 second mark. 

Is it a balk because his first step with the left foot wasn't clearly towards second? He does seem to be picking in a awkward, unplanned manner. This smells like a balk but I am trying to figure out just what it is...

Tom

https://youtu.be/vyngjWcXJqw?t=24

 

[noumpere]

13 hours ago, Toggy said:

 

Is it a balk because his first step with the left foot wasn't clearly towards second?

 

 

Apparently.  The video doesn't show for sure.

[Tog Gee]

So I am a little obsessed with all this, but I really want to understand it. 

IF you slow it way down, the first step with the left foot doesn't gain much ground to second:

 

 

[lawump]

My thoughts:

I have little doubt that this was ruled a "no step" balk.  From the MLB Umpire Manual:  "NOTE: The pitcher is required to step directly toward a base when feinting a throw to a base. (Under current rules, the only base a pitcher may feint to is second.)"  

"Directly" means the pitcher must have both distance and direction toward second base.  While it is not conclusive (due to the camera angle) the umpires either determined that the foot landed more toward third base than second base (thus, lack of direction) or did not obtain enough ground toward second to meet the distance requirement.  Honestly, I think either could apply in this case.  A general rule of thumb on the professional level is that the free foot would have to land on the backside of the pitcher's plate to have "distance" toward second base.  

The pitcher's own actions show that he did not have distance and direction.  When he first puts his foot down, he lifts it right back up and has to move it again toward second base in order to make a play there (the fact that he doesn't make a play is irrelevant...if he had ended up throwing to second, he could not have done so with his foot in the position it was in when it first landed as he had no direction toward second; he had to move it a second time in order to have distance and direction toward second base.)

[Rich Ives]

3 hours ago, lawump said:

My thoughts:

I have little doubt that this was ruled a "no step" balk.  From the MLB Umpire Manual:  "NOTE: The pitcher is required to step directly toward a base when feinting a throw to a base. (Under current rules, the only base a pitcher may feint to is second.)"  

"Directly" means the pitcher must have both distance and direction toward second base.  While it is not conclusive (due to the camera angle) the umpires either determined that the foot landed more toward third base than second base (thus, lack of direction) or did not obtain enough ground toward second to meet the distance requirement.  Honestly, I think either could apply in this case.  A general rule of thumb on the professional level is that the free foot would have to land on the backside of the pitcher's plate to have "distance" toward second base.  

The pitcher's own actions show that he did not have distance and direction.  When he first puts his foot down, he lifts it right back up and has to move it again toward second base in order to make a play there (the fact that he doesn't make a play is irrelevant...if he had ended up throwing to second, he could not have done so with his foot in the position it was in when it first landed as he had no direction toward second; he had to move it a second time in order to have distance and direction toward second base.)

There is no "minimum distance"  (other than zero).  The most recent MLBUM I have just says the foot cannot come down in the same place as where is was.

 

[lawump]

1 minute ago, Rich Ives said:

There is no "minimum distance"  (other than zero).  The most recent MLBUM I have just says the foot cannot come down in the same place as where is was.

 

If that's the case, they must have called it for no direction.  Thanks.

[Tog Gee]

Thanks guys. 

[Richvee]

@lawumphas laid it out perfectly. The call seems to be the initial step is in the direction of third base, then another step towards second. 

Watching this clip leads me to a question. OBR, NCAA, feints to 3B are balks. We all know this. Now, what If a runner takes off, as he does in this clip? Can a pitcher then step and feint to third, disengage, and run at the runner? 

In other words, can he feint to third to drive back a runner attempting to steal? I should know this.. never really considered it. 

 

[Senor Azul]

The 2013 edition of the Wendelstedt manual answers your question, Mr. Richvee, in a footnote that appears on page 103.

“Though adding third base to the prohibition of feinting without completing the throw was explicitly meant to speed up the game by eliminating the so-called ‘third-to-first move,’ an unintended consequence was that it requires the pitcher to throw to third base even on a play with a runner from second attempting to steal third. Take the following situation:

“R2, one out. As the pitcher comes to the set position, R2 attempts to steal third base. The pitcher, seeing the runner taking off, steps directly to third base, but does not complete the throw. R2 holds up and attempts to return to second base. The pitcher then charges towards the runner and throws the ball to the second baseman and begins a rundown on R2.

“Ruling:  This is a balk. Not for throwing to an unoccupied base (he was attempting to make a play), but rather, for feinting to third base without completing the throw.”

[noumpere]

17 hours ago, Rich Ives said:

There is no "minimum distance"  (other than zero).  The most recent MLBUM I have just says the foot cannot come down in the same place as where is was.

 

Is this a change?  We've had the discussion before and (iirc) on a move to second, the step must be beyond the rubber.

[Tog Gee]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Is this a change?  We've had the discussion before and (iirc) on a move to second, the step must be beyond the rubber.

I suspect that was a guideline. 

 

"Directly" means the pitcher must have both distance and direction toward second base." This seems to make sense (from an earlier comment).

[Senor Azul]

Is this a change?  We've had the discussion before and (iirc) on a move to second, the step must be beyond the rubber.

I suspect that was a guideline.

We did have at least one other lengthy discussion about this question—I can’t find it at the moment. I am pretty sure it was fellow member MidAmUmp who proved that the NCAA requires on a pickoff move to second base that the pitcher’s free foot land on the second-base side of the rubber. As I recall he even provided a video from the NCAA rules interpreter (Bruns?).

After his proof was presented then someone else added that Jim Evans in his famous balk video stated that pro ball has the same requirement. It seems to me that someone from TASO was going to present the question to his rules interpreter to see what the high school ruling should be—but I don’t recall seeing if that was ever done. So—not just a guideline in college for sure and probably not for pro ball.