Pickoff to 3B , fielder "not on base"

[maven]

3 hours ago, RBIbaseball said:

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).

Apologies: I thought you were speaking of the same play.

[Jimurray]

32 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

@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?

 

How do you allow a throw to F6 or F4 well off 2B, not holding R2 and not playing on him, him being on or near the base? The rulebook specifically allows a feint to 2B. It says nothing about a throw there.

[The Man in Blue]

4 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

How do you allow a throw to F6 or F4 well off 2B, not holding R2 and not playing on him, him being on or near the base? The rulebook specifically allows a feint to 2B. It says nothing about a throw there.

I was going to bring that up, but I had quite a bit packed in my previous post.

Allowable under the rule book and the logic being presented.

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

I was going to bring that up, but I had quite a bit packed in my previous post.

Allowable under the rule book and the logic being presented.

So you agree with our logic, @maven having the best explanation of it. You just don't like rulebooks that need some logic or interps.🙂

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, thanks for posting case play 6.2.4J twice for my reading pleasure. And I have to tell you that I am impressed that you found the 2007 online case play. I have a case play for you as well--I cannot input it easily so I am going to leave it to you or someone else to post it here.

It's current case play 8.3.5H and it tells us that a feint is not a throw and a feint is not considered to be a play either. So is your theory an exception to this?

Switching codes--OBR says the following...

Not a play or attempted play:

A fake or a feint to a base but not actually throwing, even though the fielder draws his arm back to feint a throw.

Does your assertion that a feint can be an actual throw work for OBR?

 

[Jimurray]

11 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, thanks for posting case play 6.2.4J twice for my reading pleasure. And I have to tell you that I am impressed that you found the 2007 online case play. I have a case play for you as well--I cannot input it easily so I am going to leave it to you or someone else to post it here.

It's current case play 8.3.5H and it tells us that a feint is not a throw and a feint is not considered to be a play either. So is your theory an exception to this?

Switching codes--OBR says the following...

Not a play or attempted play:

A fake or a feint to a base but not actually throwing, even though the fielder draws his arm back to feint a throw.

Does your assertion that a feint can be an actual throw work for OBR?

 

I don't think we should be considering what a "play" is to understand why a throw off the base that you can't feint to is a balk and a throw off the base to a base that you can feint to is not a balk. OBR allows a feint to 2B by rule. OBR does not balk a throw off 2B because they allow feints to 2B. 

[Senor Azul]

In OBR once the pitcher steps toward second base, he has fulfilled the only thing required by the rule. He may then throw the ball to anywhere on the field without taking another step, except to another base. (2013 Wendelstedt manual, p. 104)

[Jimurray]

39 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

In OBR once the pitcher steps toward second base, he has fulfilled the only thing required by the rule. He may then throw the ball to anywhere on the field without taking another step, except to another base. (2013 Wendelstedt manual, p. 104)

What rule is WUM referring to? Have you continued reading the WUM regarding throwing to a fielder off 1B or 3B? Do they explain why it can be a balk and refer to a rule or just interpret it as a balk with no rule reference. 

[ErichKeane]

The case play referred to by @Senor Azul:

 

NFHS 8.3.5 Situation H: R1 is at first when B2 hits to F6, who feints a throw to second and then throws the ball into the dugout.  At the time of the throw, R1 has touched second but B2 has not touched first.  RULING: Because the feint by F6 is not considered a play, R1 is awarded third base and B2 is awarded second base.  The award is based on the positions of R1 and B2 at the time of the pitch.

 

Not sure how relevant?  This is for the 'first play by an infielder' to determine awards, but I'm not sure what the impact to this discussion is.

 

[Senor Azul]

Mr. Jimurray, the rule is OBR 5.07(d)

...he may throw to any base provided he steps directly toward such base before making the throw.

Elsewhere in the rules limitations are placed on first and third base. The only limitation to second is the step. This seems pretty basic stuff to me.

Mr. ErichKeane, I already stated the reasons for citing this case play in the earlier post. Our resident experts are trying to make us believe that two different acts are really the same--throwing and feinting. This case play refutes the assertion. It also tells us that feinting is not a play. So how can the contention that the throw/feint is a balk when everything else tells us a balk is a play?

Don't try to tell me that I am misconstruing the case play because Carl Childress also interpreted it to mean that a feint is not a throw. I asked Mr. Jimurray if his assertion was an exception but he chose to take evasive maneuvers. 

Also why does the FED define the two terms separately without mentioning the possibility that in certain circumstances they can be used interchangeably?

The definition for feint in rule 2-28-5 refers to the pitcher throwing to a base but fails to mention the possibility of the pitcher feinting to a fielder.

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. Jimurray, the rule is OBR 5.07(d)

...he may throw to any base provided he steps directly toward such base before making the throw.

Elsewhere in the rules limitations are placed on first and third base. The only limitation to second is the step. This seems pretty basic stuff to me.

 

Yes elsewhere in the rules, 6.02(a)(1), limitations are placed on first and third base. No feinting. Which is why a throw to a fielder off that base can be a balk, depending. 

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, Jimurray said:

So you agree with our logic, @maven having the best explanation of it. You just don't like rulebooks that need some logic or interps.🙂

Quite the opposite ... 

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Quite the opposite ... 

Opposite of logic or incomplete rulebooks? to that point I found a long ago post in "the Official Forum" (name and website can be found but actual title may be different) which has declined to rare participation but back in the 2000s one thread about this had the following:

"

"First base is the only base the pitcher HAS to throw to - at 2B and 3B he can step and feint without a throw.

Jim Evans explains the rationale in his Baseball Rules Annotated:

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."

Another post which I lost explains that the offense would be hindered if you could throw to a fielder off the base at 1B (3B not being in the rules back then) and the purpose of the rule not allowing feinting was to advantage offense. So whether or not you can parlay a throw off base as a feint, the rules makers wanted it to be a balk to encourage offense and they put that interp into whatever book Jim Evans was reading at the start of his career and he explained it, I believe, as a violation of the prohibition of feinting. It now is an interp in the MLBUM. I doubt even MLB umpires could give you a cite. Just like the CCS incorrect balk cite for F1 starting and stopping. We try, Don Quixote, to rationalize things for you but we know the windmills are out there🙂

[The Man in Blue]

As usually happens in these debates, @Jimurray, you lost me a few posts back.

A feint to second base is specifically legal in OBR.

You claim a throw to a position (not the base) is a feint (I disagree with that), therefor a throw to F4 or F6 not near second base should be legal -- you say that move is a feint and the rules say a feint to second is expressly legal.  Now you are arguing against allowing that ... I think.

Either way, I appreciate the dive into the archives, but you are still just providing more "Ol' Smitty said so" examples.  As I have consistently said, this is the problem with interpretations and case plays ... they rarely (if ever) use the actual rules to explain the logic.  It is just "[I believe] this is what they wanted because this is what I was told."

As for the MLBUM, as I said earlier: use that and apply that if you are calling MLB.  If MLB is not writing your check, do not apply it.

[Tborze]

This is an interesting discussion. 
I have never considered a “feint throw “ before.  But, it seems there is some logic behind it. 
Feinting a throw to 2nd BASE is legal, meaning by some here, the throw can go to the SS, F4 or even CFer. Therefore, it was a “feint” to 2nd BASE. 
On the other hand, a throw must be made to 1st or 3rd to the BASE. If the throw is made to a fielder who is not near the base he has feinted a throw to that BASE!

HMM…

[ErichKeane]

I'm still confused thinking about what @RBIbaseball brought up... there are two ways to parse the rule.  "Feinting the throw", meaning "pretend to throw" (in the direction of the base), or "feinting the throw to the base" meaning "pretending to throw to the base" (that is, pretending to throw to the base, but throwing elsewhere). 

It seems like the latter is what the 'not directly to the base' interp is using, which is inconsistent with the definition of 'feint' in the rules.

[Jimurray]

2 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I'm still confused thinking about what @RBIbaseball brought up... there are two ways to parse the rule.  "Feinting the throw", meaning "pretend to throw" (in the direction of the base), or "feinting the throw to the base" meaning "pretending to throw to the base" (that is, pretending to throw to the base, but throwing elsewhere). 

It seems like the latter is what the 'not directly to the base' interp is using, which is inconsistent with the definition of 'feint' in the rules.

Where is the definition of "feint" in the rules? I don't have Evans book but perusing old posts on Official Forum indicate what he said was the rationale behind not allowing a feint to 1B and currently 1B and 3B. MLB wanted to give the runner an offensive advantage at 1B and allowing the pitcher to feint there would shorten the runners lead. They then decided that allowing the pitcher to throw to a fielder off the base also would put the runner at a disadvantage and clarified that in PBUC/MLBUM, how long ago I don't know. Whether they decided throwing to a fielder off the base was also a violation of the feinting rule or just wanted it called a balk with no rule change I also don't know. 

[The Man in Blue]

13 minutes ago, ErichKeane said:

I'm still confused thinking about what @RBIbaseball brought up... there are two ways to parse the rule.  "Feinting the throw", meaning "pretend to throw" (in the direction of the base), or "feinting the throw to the base" meaning "pretending to throw to the base" (that is, pretending to throw to the base, but throwing elsewhere). 

It seems like the latter is what the 'not directly to the base' interp is using, which is inconsistent with the definition of 'feint' in the rules.

 

I'm going to sound like a dick with this one, but ...

So you are saying there is feinting reading the rulebook (meaning you opened it, stared at the pages, and then didn't read anything) ...

... and then there is feinting reading the rulebook meaning you did actually read it, but are pretending that it says something different than what it actually says.

[The Man in Blue]

14 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I don't have Evans book but perusing old posts on Official Forum indicate what he said ...

 

... and probably that one.  Sorry, Jim.  It just bugs me when you haven't cited a single actual rule to back up your position.

 

What you went on to say is that some umpires on an online forum felt that the pitcher was getting an advantage, so DO THIS despite it not being supported by rule.

 

Let me try another approach ... What advantage is the runner getting by not letting the pitcher feint OR what advantage is the pitcher getting by being able to fake a throw over? 

Since we aren't using a theoretical at first or third, let's look at second base where it is legal.  The throw takes the same amount of time to get there no matter what (it doesn't magically get there faster if he doesn't throw it).  We don't allow the pitcher to fake a throw over and then hurry up and pitch while the runner is still laying on the ground.  So what advantage is there?

The same thing goes for the fielder playing off the base.  What advantage is there?  The runner can actually get a bigger lead if the fielder is off the bag.  If the fielder is not close enough to tag him, there is no advantage.

 

OK, I just need to stop ... 

[ErichKeane]

12 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

Where is the definition of "feint" in the rules? I don't have Evans book but perusing old posts on Official Forum indicate what he said was the rationale behind not allowing a feint to 1B and currently 1B and 3B. MLB wanted to give the runner an offensive advantage at 1B and allowing the pitcher to feint there would shorten the runners lead. They then decided that allowing the pitcher to throw to a fielder off the base also would put the runner at a disadvantage and clarified that in PBUC/MLBUM, how long ago I don't know. Whether they decided throwing to a fielder off the base was also a violation of the feinting rule or just wanted it called a balk with no rule change I also don't know. 

I thought I saw it quoted above, but NFHS 2-28-5: 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.

I realize now that OBR doesn't have a definition of it (and I mis-read the above quote of it).

 

9 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I'm going to sound like a dick with this one, but ...

So you are saying there is feinting reading the rulebook (meaning you opened it, stared at the pages, and then didn't read anything) ...

... and then there is feinting reading the rulebook meaning you did actually read it, but are pretending that it says something different than what it actually says.

One of my pet-peeves of defining ANYTHING in english is that many sentences have ambiguous parses.  I am a member of two standards organizations in computing that both define a programming language with english prose, and much of our time is trying to suss out those ambiguities to clarify intent. 

Baseball rules obviously do a much worse job of that (and lean HEAVILY on past interpretation publications as a result), and lead to discussions like this.  All of this combines to why doing a 'custom' rule set often results in terribleness.  It takes language and rule experts to finely craft rules, and even those are horribly ambiguous all the time.

[Jimurray]

29 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

... and probably that one.  Sorry, Jim.  It just bugs me when you haven't cited a single actual rule to back up your position.

 

What you went on to say is that some umpires on an online forum felt that the pitcher was getting an advantage, so DO THIS despite it not being supported by rule.

 

OK, I just need to stop ... 

I have cited a single rule. The online umpires only had purchased Jim Evans "Baseball Rules Annotated" and were quoting or paraphrasing Evans in threads about throwing to a fielder off the base. I'm assuming you are aware of Evans reputation.

If not advantage why would the OBR authors differentiate between 1B and 2B, 3B and now just 2B? You don't need to stop. 

[concertman1971]

On 6/28/2023 at 11:16 AM, The Man in Blue said:

bacon-wrapped cheese hot dog 

MMMMMMM FTFY

[JSam21]

20 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

 

nevermind...

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I have cited a single rule. The online umpires only had purchased Jim Evans "Baseball Rules Annotated" and were quoting or paraphrasing Evans in threads about throwing to a fielder off the base. I'm assuming you are aware of Evans reputation.

If not advantage why would the OBR authors differentiate between 1B and 2B, 3B and now just 2B? You don't need to stop. 

 

If there is an advantage (still don't know what that would be), then why was it ONLY 1B up until 2013?  That's an awful long time of "disadvantaging" runners! Why is it STILL only 1B in many other rule sets?

I believe ... and I may be wrong on this ... The addition of 3B was to end a perceived inequality in the rule between left-handed pitchers and right-handed pitchers.  The rule only covering 1B was thought to only effect LHP since they face 1B.  No rule at 2B because it is equal for LHP and RHP. 

Even some MLB umpires don't know the real reasons for any of it ... 

 

Many different perspectives from players, managers, Joe Torre ... but still no real reason:

https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/ref/sports/baseball/baseball-rule-change-eliminates-a-fake-pickoff-by-pitcher.html

 

[noumpere]

1 minute ago, The Man in Blue said:

I believe ... and I may be wrong on this ... The addition of 3B was to end a perceived inequality in the rule between left-handed pitchers and right-handed pitchers.  The rule only covering 1B was thought to only effect LHP since they face 1B.  No rule at 2B because it is equal for LHP and RHP. 

 

 

I think -- some announcers thought it was a waste of time because it "never worked" (we know that's wrong).  In some mis-guided attempt to speed up the game, MLB outlawed it.  (To get around the whole "is it just the 3-1 move or any feint" debate -- see another thread -- they made it any feint to third).

If, instead, they had gone to the current "limit on disengagements" rule, they could have kept the 3-1 move.