Pickoff to 3B , fielder "not on base"

[RBIbaseball]

14U USSSA - OBR balk rules

 

R1 and R3

Defense executed a play where RHP pickoff to 3B. F5 catches the ball and throws to 2B who tags R1 who went on pitchers first move. In this case F5 moved toward 3B to catch the ball and was maybe 2-4 feet max off the base, and if R3 was caught sleeping, he was well within range to make a play on him.

After the play, assistant coach from the dugout yells that it's a balk because he didn't throw directly toward 3B. 

 

I ignore him from the field. My partner seems to as well. Then he walks out and looks towards the plate and says again "Blue, you have to throw directly to the base, that's a balk". My partner has deer in headlights, so I yell over to the coach "He threw to 3B base coach, no balk." He responds "He wasn't at the base". I put my hand up kinda in a stop sign fashion and say, "He was 2 feet off the base coach, no balk". He responds with a gotcha inflection, "exactly, 2 feet, So he's not on the base" as he kinda gave up and started walking back... I chuckle inside the same way I do when my kids get me with a good comeback (he ain't wrong, lol).

 

He came out to give a sub (I had the pitching card) after that half. He asks, "So you said he was 2 feet off, how many feet is he allowed to be off" . I told him that it's a judgement call, and he was well within the vicinity of the base to make a play. He asks again how far off the base is in the vicinity. I told him I think most people would say youre in the vicinity if you are a step and a reach from making a play on the runner, but as long as the throw is towards that base its going to be tough to get unless it's blatantly obvious.

 

He thanks me for explaining it to him. No issues further.

 

I posted in the rules forum because I mainly want to check my knowledge and understanding

To the coaches question: What is the threshold for throwing toward 3B? If F3 would have been standing 15 ft off the bag, then relayed to 2B, that would indeed be a balk, correct?

 

 

I'm open to any critique on how I handled the situation and explanation as well.

[Senor Azul]

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 the 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.

[The Man in Blue]

The interpretations of this very play are the bane of my umpiring existence as it is a prime example of people taking a non-rulebook source and misapplying it.  We'll see what happens here.  (EDIT: @Senor Azul got in while I was typing ... I appreciate the language from JR more since it doesn't draw a line.  I was expecting the BRD citation.)

I had it this weekend for the first time (14u).  I didn't call it.  F5 was in a normal fielding position when F1 threw to him.  F5 moved towards the runner and the runner went back ... looks like a play to me.  Nobody said anything.

I have an issue basing a balk on the pitcher simply by the third baseman's position.  If the pitcher made a crappy throw and missed by 10-15 feet, we aren't calling it a balk.

 

[Senor Azul]

From an old PBUC: It is a balk if the pitcher throws to the first or third baseman who is either in front of or behind the base and obviously not making an attempt to retire the runner...

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

The interpretations of this very play are the bane of my umpiring existence as it is a prime example of people taking a non-rulebook source and misapplying it.  We'll see what happens here.  (EDIT: @Senor Azul got in while I was typing ... I appreciate the language from JR more since it doesn't draw a line.  I was expecting the BRD citation.)

I had it this weekend for the first time (14u).  I didn't call it.  F5 was in a normal fielding position when F1 threw to him.  F5 moved towards the runner and the runner went back ... looks like a play to me.  Nobody said anything.

I have an issue basing a balk on the pitcher simply by the third baseman's position.  If the pitcher made a crappy throw and missed by 10-15 feet, we aren't calling it a balk.

 

If the pitcher makes a crappy throw that does not go near the base we don't call it a balk because it was not a feint to 1B/3B and doesn't violate 6.02(a)(2):

"(2) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;"

What is a balk is throwing to a fielder off the base (1B and 3B, not 2B) which is considered a feint unless you also judge a play was on.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

From an old PBUC: It is a balk if the pitcher throws to the first or third baseman who is either in front of or behind the base and obviously not making an attempt to retire the runner...

What if the pitcher IS making an attempt and the fielder just isn't on the same page?

[The Man in Blue]

1 hour ago, Jimurray said:

If the pitcher makes a crappy throw that does not go near the base we don't call it a balk because it was not a feint to 1B/3B and doesn't violate 6.02(a)(2):

"(2) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;"

What is a balk is throwing to a fielder off the base (1B and 3B, not 2B) which is considered a feint unless you also judge a play was on.

 

How do you get a feint out of a completed throw?

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

How do you get a feint out of a completed throw?

What other balk rule would it violate? It is a PBUC/MLBUM interp and I think Evans or somebody in my past recollections said that that was the basis for the balk. You also get a feint out of a completed throw to F6 or F4 off 2B but the rationale is that it is allowed because you can feint to 2B. 

[RBIbaseball]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

The interpretations of this very play are the bane of my umpiring existence as it is a prime example of people taking a non-rulebook source and misapplying it.  We'll see what happens here.  (EDIT: @Senor Azul got in while I was typing ... I appreciate the language from JR more since it doesn't draw a line.  I was expecting the BRD citation.)

I had it this weekend for the first time (14u).  I didn't call it.  F5 was in a normal fielding position when F1 threw to him.  F5 moved towards the runner and the runner went back ... looks like a play to me.  Nobody said anything.

I have an issue basing a balk on the pitcher simply by the third baseman's position.  If the pitcher made a crappy throw and missed by 10-15 feet, we aren't calling it a balk.

 

The reason I was patient with the coach is in this case it was a designed play to get R1 to take off and throw him out at 2B from F5s pickoff relay (I know this for certain , because the defensive coach was clapping up his players complimenting them for executing it just like they had practiced)

 

In this case if F5 was 15 feet off the base, I think it could and should be a balk

 

In my judgement he was close enough to 3B that it was legal

[RBIbaseball]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

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 the 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.

Thank you. I would say my description of a step and a reach from making a play isn't too far off "being able to try a tag"

 

Is it fair to say this can be applied in FED as well?

 

Or does FED have a different "line in the sand" ?

[Jimurray]

4 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

Thank you. Is it fair to say this can be applied in FED as well?

 

Or does FED have a different "line in the sand"

Fed is pretty much the same as JR and does not require us to judge if an attempt to retire the runner was in progress as the PBUC interp requires:

"

6.2.4 SITUATION J:

 

With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, F1 quickly realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in a 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."

[BLarson]

We ran this play quite a bit of the time...it usually only works the first time, so we tried to get it right the first time.

For us, we would have F5 hold the runner on, but come off the bag to take the throw to get R1 attempting 2nd...and then fire home if R3 takes off.

We never executed it with F5 in a defensive position off the bag.

[RBIbaseball]

29 minutes ago, BLarson said:

We ran this play quite a bit of the time...it usually only works the first time, so we tried to get it right the first time.

For us, we would have F5 hold the runner on, but come off the bag to take the throw to get R1 attempting 2nd...and then fire home if R3 takes off.

We never executed it with F5 in a defensive position off the bag.

He really wasn't too far off. He was maybe 5-6 feet off the bag, and the throw took him within 2-4 feet.

Apparently this coach wants the player straddling the bag or it's a balk ... Smh

 

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Jimurray said:

What other balk rule would it violate? It is a PBUC/MLBUM interp and I think Evans or somebody in my past recollections said that that was the basis for the balk. You also get a feint out of a completed throw to F6 or F4 off 2B but the rationale is that it is allowed because you can feint to 2B. 

“What other balk rule would it violate?”

If you have to ask that question, that is already the answer.  It doesn’t violate the rule we are discussing.  Simply misusing a word doesn’t grant privilege of applying a rule.

If you want to go lay the pedantic card, the rule says the ball has to be thrown directly to the base … so a throw 5 feet up in the air is going to the glove, not the base.  Balk!  

Once again, the grapevine rules are being applied over the explicit language of the rule book.  The OBR rule book specifically calls a feint a not completed throw.  (I’ll have to pull the citation when I get back to my laptop.)

Here is my million dollar question: where is the line between MSU and an off-base interpretation?  Popularity?  Longevity?  Number of books sold?

If we want a rule specifying where the ball needs to go, then clarify the existing rule or write a new rule.  Don’t misuse words and misapply other rules.

Here is a variation of this that garnered significant discussion in the softball world.  During the WCWS there were runners on 1st and 3rd, as F2 is firing the ball, the batter crosses over the plate.  Seems like a simple BI call … except the catcher was throwing the ball to F4 who was nowhere near the base and never intended to play on R1.  It was a “decoy” to get R3 to run.  The call on the field was no BI, but it was overturned into BI on a replay challenge.  How could it be BI if the catcher wasn’t making a play on a runner?

Basic concepts are the same.  Fielder is not near the runner … how is it a play in one case and not in another?

 

(I’m ok if we want to call it a balk based on the proximity, though I’m not a fan.  I have an issue with claiming it is a feint.)

[Jimurray]

7 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

If we want a rule specifying where the ball needs to go, then clarify the existing rule or write a new rule.  Don’t misuse words and misapply other rules.

 

 

Absent clear rule wording I'll go with MLBUM MSU. Yes, it's too bad everything is not in the rulebook.  They should have had you on the committee when they rewrote all the chapters. As for being pedantic, are you, in the case of throwing to F4 or F6 well off 2B? Balk for not direct? Rulebook allows a feint: "6.02(a)(3) Comment:......It is legal for a pitcher to feint a throw to second base." 

[beerguy55]

12 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

(I’m ok if we want to call it a balk based on the proximity, though I’m not a fan.  I have an issue with claiming it is a feint.)

If I turn to first, and throw to F3 who is 30 feet off the base, I've feinted.  I've deceived the runner by making him think I'm throwing to get him out, but I'm throwing somewhere else - that's the feint.  In the purest dictionary definition sense of the word.

I'll add the other guidance about "obviously not making an attempt to retire the runner" line too - how often do we see a throw from F1 to F3 that is designed simply to remind R1 to stay close...F3 doesn't even pretend to make a tag attempt...that's never called a balk (nor should it be).

 

As far as the OBR rule...it's illegal to feint to first AND fail to complete the throw?  Isn't that redundant?  Aren't those the same condition?  Does that mean F1 can double pump?

[The Man in Blue]

When calling MLB or MLB affiliated games, then use the MLBUM.

When calling anything else, not so much.  DON’T CROSS CODES.

Honestly, when rewriting (or even just writing) rules, having a “lay” person on the committee is an excellent idea.  Especially with OBR, the books are written from a very “inside” mentality and that is how we arrive at these problems.

An umpire should be able to umpire from the rule book.  Anything else should be helping to teach how to think through the rule book, not supplanting it.  

[maven]

18 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

How do you get a feint out of a completed throw?

This question betrays a common misunderstanding of the requirement.

At 1B, we know the pitcher "cannot feint." Usually, we call this when F1 steps but fails to throw at all. But it's also a balk if he DOES throw, but F3 is playing back, not near enough to 1B to make the play. So how is that a "feint?"

Remember: once F1 is engaged, he may legally do just 3 things. Pitch to the batter, disengage, or step and throw/feint to a base. Notice that 'feint' here means "feint a throw to a base." F1 can feint by not throwing at all or by throwing somewhere other than to a base.

So this is the violation we call when F1 feints to 1B and does NOT throw, but also what we're calling when he DOES throw to F3 playing back. He is feinting a throw to the base, not merely failing to throw.

For codes that apply the same restriction to 3B, we need to call it the same.

In the OP, the umpire must judge whether F5 was close enough to the base to make a play on R3 when he receives the throw. Note that he does NOT have to attempt a play on R3, he merely must be close enough to do so. I see 2 different accounts in the thread on this point: initially, the OP says F5 was 2-3 feet from 3B, later he says 5-6 feet. The former, IMO, is legal; the latter is probably not.

But, as ever, assessing a judgment call without video is not really responsible, so I wouldn't be able to provide that.

[RBIbaseball]

22 minutes ago, maven said:

I see 2 different accounts in the thread on this point: initially, the OP says F5 was 2-3 feet from 3B, later he says 5-6 feet. The former, IMO, is legal; the latter is probably not.

Thanks for your insight.

I don't think I contradicted myself in this thread, but I very well may have. 

I think you're referring to me saying F3 was probably playing about 5-6 feet off the base prior to F1s move, and that the pickoff took F5 to about 2-3 feet from the base (it looks like I said 2-4 in the original post).

 

Regardless, I understand it's a judgement call. And it's not like we are getting a tape measure out and finding the footprints after... But even at 6 feet, I don't think it's unreasonable that F5 could leap toward/dive and tag a runner. For me, that would probably still qualify as proximity of making a play. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I would agree it's not too far from that.

 

Do we have a different standard when there isn't a designed play to catch R1 vs when there is?

 

Let's say there is only R3, and F5 is just caught sleeping not holding the runner on when F1 thought he was. Do you send R3 home on a balk when he throws to F5 standing 12 feet off the base? By the letter of the law, should be a yes, but I'm not sure I would do it without a little emotional support from my friends here.

 

[noumpere]

30 minutes ago, RBIbaseball said:

 

Do we have a different standard when there isn't a designed play to catch R1 vs when there is?

 

Let's say there is only R3, and F5 is just caught sleeping not holding the runner on when F1 thought he was. Do you send R3 home on a balk when he throws to F5 standing 12 feet off the base? By the letter of the law, should be a yes, but I'm not sure I would do it without a little emotional support from my friends here.

 

No, we do not have a different standard.

What if F1 just held onto the ball because F5 was sleeping / miscommunication?  You'd (I'm assuming here) have no problem balking that; it's the same logic to balk in your play.

[RBIbaseball]

21 minutes ago, noumpere said:

No, we do not have a different standard.

What if F1 just held onto the ball because F5 was sleeping / miscommunication?  You'd (I'm assuming here) have no problem balking that; it's the same logic to balk in your play.

Yep you're absolutely right. 

I guess a more accurate statement would have been, if it's in the grey area of the proximity judgment I would probably lean toward not balking it if there is not another play on... Vs if it was a designed play to get R1 running to 2B targeted out, I would probably be more stringent on what that proximity judgment is.

Does that make sense ?

 

I agree that there should be one standard, and that's why I'm asking more questions to help define that standard for myself in my own judgement going forward.

But I'm just trying to be transparent and honest in saying that I would had definitely factored that into the equation ... As wrong as it may be.

[Senor Azul]

Fortunately for us the FED defines the terms feint and throw. 

Rule 2-28-5 defines feint as...

A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base and which is used in an attempt to deceive a runner.

Rule 2-37 A throw is the act of voluntarily losing possession through having the ball leave the hand for a purpose other than a pitch. It may result in the ball being bounced, handed, rolled, tossed or thrown.

[Jimurray]

4 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Fortunately for us the FED defines the terms feint and throw. 

Rule 2-28-5 defines feint as...

A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base and which is used in an attempt to deceive a runner.

Rule 2-37 A throw is the act of voluntarily losing possession through having the ball leave the hand for a purpose other than a pitch. It may result in the ball being bounced, handed, rolled, tossed or thrown.

Fortunately, FED has a caseplay that makes a throw not to 1B a possible balk:

"

6.2.4 SITUATION J:

 

With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, F1 quickly realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in a 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."

Unfortunately, they do not cite any rule in that particular caseplay and more unfortunately a 2007 interp cites a rule that does not make sense:

"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)"

 

[The Man in Blue]

@maven, I appreciate what you are saying and I understand it ... I still disagree with the use of the word "feint" in that context, gr.  A feint is not referred to as a feinted pickoff move in the rulebook, it is referred to in context of the throw.  In the OBR book, "feint" (or a derivative) appears 7 times.

Two of those are not involving the pitcher or a pickoff move (one about a feint bunt, one about a fielder feinting toward another base).  One refers specifically to a pitch.

Of the remaining 4, THREE specifically distinguish between a feinted throw and a throw.  The fourth specifies a legal feint situation.

The fourth specifically talks about fake movements followed by a throw, leading into the legal feint situation.  Again, very specific that the throw and the feint are two different things.

 

While you can grammatically call a throw away from the base a feinted pickoff move, it is pretty evident that is not what the rulebook is referring to.  The rulebook uses the term seven times and all are in reference to an uncompleted, "fake" move, whether that is a pitcher throwing, a pitcher pitching, a fielder throwing, or a batter bunting. 

Again, if we want to call a throw away from the base a balk, we need a rule to support it and NONE of the "feint" rules are it.  We can fall back on the "directly to the base", but then we open up a can of worms since the throw goes to the fielder, not the base.

An interp or case play is OK, but it is nothing but a glorified "Ol' Smitty said so."  (If Ol' Smitty is the boss, then do what Ol' Smitty says.)  An interpretation should be supported by rule.  A case play should demonstrate an application of rules.  Neither takes the place of rules (unless Ol' Smitty is the boss).

We have established that a pickoff move does not necessitate an attempt to put a runner out.  It can simply be to drive a runner back.  If the throw to the in-position fielder drives the runner back, it is successful regardless of where the fielder was standing.  So how is that a feinted pick-off move?

 

[The Man in Blue]

29 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Fortunately, FED has a caseplay that makes a throw not to 1B a possible balk:

"

6.2.4 SITUATION J:

 

With R1 on first base and two outs, F1 attempts to pick off R1. As F1 pivots to throw, F1 quickly realizes that F3 is not on the base, but is in a 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."

Unfortunately, they do not cite any rule in that particular caseplay and more unfortunately a 2007 interp cites a rule that does not make sense:

"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)"

 

 

However ... as I mentioned, we have established that a pickoff move can simply be an attempt to drive a runner back, not an an attempt to retire him.  So if the runner goes back, the fielder was in close enough proximity to make the move successful.  No balk.

Fielder is holding the runner on, but the throw is 20 feet away.  Balk?  The throw was "not close enough to legitimately make a play on the runner."

If we want this rule, make this rule.  Quit trying to serve me a bacon-wrapped cheese hot dog and telling me it is a chicken cordon bleu.  Nothing wrong with a bacon-wrapped hot dog, but it ain't chicken.