Step over pick off to 1st base

[Detridge]

Would this be a balk? The guy was stealing from 1st and from what I've understood it is allowed as long as long as the runner on 1st steals. Go to 42:37 of the video.

 

[834k3r]

Sarcasm mechanic:  well, since the plate umpire never but the ball back in play, it's nothing.

[noumpere]

10 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

Sarcasm mechanic:  well, since the plate umpire never but the ball back in play, it's nothing.

Was time out?  I can't really tell on my system.

Nor can I tell whether R1 was attempting to advance (the specific wording varies by code, but my guess is that this was OBR and not FED -- not many FED games played with meters / metres shown on the outfield fence).  If he was, then the pick is legal; if he wasn't , then it's a balk.

[Jimurray]

20 minutes ago, noumpere said:

Was time out?  I can't really tell on my system.

Nor can I tell whether R1 was attempting to advance (the specific wording varies by code, but my guess is that this was OBR and not FED -- not many FED games played with meters / metres shown on the outfield fence).  If he was, then the pick is legal; if he wasn't , then it's a balk.

I believe OBR now is similar to other codes in allowing the pitcher to throw to the unoccupied base if the runner creates an impression of advancing. This comment was added around 2014:

"Rule 6.02(a)(4) Comment: When determining whether the pitcher throws or feints a throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play, the umpire should consider whether a runner on the previous base demonstrates or otherwise creates an impression of his intent to advance to such unoccupied base."

Back then it was 8.05(d) comment.

I have no balk in the OP. 

[noumpere]

8 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

I believe OBR now is similar to other codes in allowing the pitcher to throw to the unoccupied base if the runner creates an impression of advancing. This comment was added around 2014:

 

Agreed -- and I should have been more clear in my description.  I couldn't see that either on my screen.

[The Man in Blue]

Nobody else has a balk when his foot lands between third and second base and he takes another step to finish turning to first without ever showing intent to go to second ahead of the runner?

If you are trying to defend it with "He could have thrown to second" then he would have needed to have made it look like he was going to and either fielder would have needed to be headed there to take the throw.  He never did.  They never did.  Balk in my game.  

[834k3r]

2 hours ago, noumpere said:

Was time out?  I can't really tell on my system.

I assumed (yep, I know what happens when I do that) since PU was brushing off the plate, time had been called. To double-check, I went back to 42:07...and he didn't call time. I guess I made myself what the cliche says.

[834k3r]

2 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Nobody else has a balk when his foot lands between third and second base and he takes another step to finish turning to first without ever showing intent to go to second ahead of the runner?

If you are trying to defend it with "He could have thrown to second" then he would have needed to have made it look like he was going to and either fielder would have needed to be headed there to take the throw.  He never did.  They never did.  Balk in my game.  

SS is running to the bag as F1 fakes to second. I get what you're saying, but had I been on this crew, I wouldn't have a balk--so long as R1 did what was mentioned in OP--he was trying to go to 2B, but went back.

[Jimurray]

37 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Nobody else has a balk when his foot lands between third and second base and he takes another step to finish turning to first without ever showing intent to go to second ahead of the runner?

If you are trying to defend it with "He could have thrown to second" then he would have needed to have made it look like he was going to and either fielder would have needed to be headed there to take the throw.  He never did.  They never did.  Balk in my game.  

The step landed behind the rubber towards 2B. That's all that's needed for it to be a feint to 2B and then the pitcher becomes an infielder as he leaves the rubber. He can run or throw anywhere now.  If you can feint to a base you can throw to a fielder off the base or not throw at all. The feint was done to drive back R1 and was legal if you judge R1 gave the impression of "going".

[Jimurray]

38 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

SS is running to the bag as F1 fakes to second. I get what you're saying, but had I been on this crew, I wouldn't have a balk--so long as R1 did what was mentioned in OP--he was trying to go to 2B, but went back.

It doesn't matter if F6 is running to the bag.

[Jimurray]

i know, anathema to @The Man in Blue, but 2011 NFHS interps:

"SITUATION 20: With runners at first base and second base, the runner at second bluffs a steal of third by running hard to third before he stops and retreats back to second base. The pitcher, seeing the runner take off hard to third base, legally throws to the unoccupied third base. The third-base coach wants a balk called on the pitcher since the runner from second stopped. RULING: A pitcher may throw or feint a throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to put out or drive back a runner. As long as the umpire judges that it is reasonable for the pitcher to believe he had a play at third, even though the runner stopped, it is a legal move. (6-2-4b)"

 

[noumpere]

10 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

 he would have needed to have made it look like he was going to and either fielder would have needed to be headed there to take the throw. 

Reference, please.

 

As long as the pivot foot comes off the rubber as part of the feint to second, and the free foot lands behind the rubber, this is a good move.  I see both of those happening.

[beerguy55]

Considering this is in Sweden I have a high degree of certainty they're not playing FED rules.

My assumption is it would be OBR...or whatever official variant is used in international/Olympic play.

[Jimurray]

35 minutes ago, beerguy55 said:

Considering this is in Sweden I have a high degree of certainty they're not playing FED rules.

My assumption is it would be OBR...or whatever official variant is used in international/Olympic play.

I just posted the FED interp because it exemplifies how all 3 codes call it. The OBR reference is in the Comment I posted.

[beerguy55]

Jesus Christ - this game ended 18-17 in the sixth inning.  I'm not sure if there's any fee big enough for a umpire in this game.

[The Man in Blue]

On 7/19/2023 at 6:34 AM, noumpere said:

Reference, please.

 

As long as the pivot foot comes off the rubber as part of the feint to second, and the free foot lands behind the rubber, this is a good move.  I see both of those happening.

 

I suppose I am framing my comments incorrectly.  There would be no reference since I am not saying "by rule" but rather what I would want to see in my judgement as to whether the pitcher was making a legitimate play or not.

There is plenty we cannot see in the video (mainly the runner's actions), so I am basing my observations on the actions I can see.  The pitcher, IMO, does not appear that he ever had any intention of going to second base to be ahead of the runner.  I could be wrong since we cannot see the runner and I can only go on the pitcher's movement.  What I see is a pitcher that NEVER looked at first base prior to coming set or during the set.  When he spins, he never makes a motion to second or even really looks there.  What I don't hear is anybody yelling he's going.  It looks to me to be a designed move hoping to get the runner moving.  Balk.

@834k3r was correct and I was wrong earlier when I said there was nobody covering a play -- maybe.  I see F6 running to the bag, but not until AFTER the pitcher's foot has hit the ground and he has already started to spin.  That says to me he isn't reacting to the runner, but rather to the pitcher's errant motion.  Balk.

For what it is worth, I had a 16u pitcher try this over the weekend.  He only had R1 who was not going, so it was an easy call.  He was trying to spin all the way around, like an inside move at second, but couldn't do it and had to step (he went towards third).  Between innings we had a conversation with him and the coach and they explained what he was trying to do.  We explained that would still be a balk since his free foot passing the back of the plate commits him to second or the pitch; he cannot spin all the way to first.

[The Man in Blue]

14 hours ago, Jimurray said:

i know, anathema to @The Man in Blue, but 2011 NFHS interps:

"SITUATION 20: With runners at first base and second base, the runner at second bluffs a steal of third by running hard to third before he stops and retreats back to second base. The pitcher, seeing the runner take off hard to third base, legally throws to the unoccupied third base. The third-base coach wants a balk called on the pitcher since the runner from second stopped. RULING: A pitcher may throw or feint a throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to put out or drive back a runner. As long as the umpire judges that it is reasonable for the pitcher to believe he had a play at third, even though the runner stopped, it is a legal move. (6-2-4b)"

 

 

I am not going to tie this to the play we are viewing, but I will point out this is contradictory to the interp about throwing to fielder "away from a base."  I actually don't have an issue with this interp (though, as I explained above, I don't think that is what is happening) ... I have an issue with the other one.  

[Jimurray]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

I suppose I am framing my comments incorrectly.  There would be no reference since I am saying "by rule" but rather what I would want to see in my judgement as to whether the pitcher was making a legitimate play or not.

There is plenty we cannot see in the video (mainly the runner's actions), so I am basing my observations on the actions I can see.  The pitcher, IMO, does not appear that he ever had any intention of going to second base to be ahead of the runner.  I could be wrong since we cannot see the runner and I can only go on the pitcher's movement.  What I see is a pitcher that NEVER looked at first base prior to coming set or during the set.  When he spins, he never makes a motion to second or even really looks there.  What I don't hear is anybody yelling he's going.  It looks to me to be a designed move hoping to get the runner moving.  Balk.

@834k3r was correct and I was wrong earlier when I said there was nobody covering a play -- maybe.  I see F6 running to the bag, but not until AFTER the pitcher's foot has hit the ground and he has already started to spin.  That says to me he isn't reacting to the runner, but rather to the pitcher's errant motion.  Balk.

For what it is worth, I had a 16u pitcher try this over the weekend.  He only had R1 who was not going, so it was an easy call.  He was trying to spin all the way around, like an inside move at second, but couldn't do it and had to step (he went towards third).  Between innings we had a conversation with him and the coach and they explained what he was trying to do.  We explained that would still be a balk since his free foot passing the back of the plate commits him to second or the pitch; he cannot spin all the way to first.

The OP said the runner was stealing. If that was the case the pitcher was legal in stepping to 2B as a feint and then becoming an infielder. If the runner made a good bluff and gave the impression of stealing the pitcher was legal. The pitcher did look at 1B prior to taking the rubber. We do not know if the catcher gave a sign to make that move. If you judge contrary to what the OP said was happening you do have a balk for feinting to an unoccupied base.

[noumpere]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

 The pitcher, IMO, does not appear that he ever had any intention of going to second base to be ahead of the runner.  I could be wrong since we cannot see the runner and I can only go on the pitcher's movement.  What I see is a pitcher that NEVER looked at first base prior to coming set or during the set.  When he spins, he never makes a motion to second or even really looks there.  What I don't hear is anybody yelling he's going. 

None of that matters.  all that matters is whether the runner was advancing or attempting an advance or feinting an advance (or whatever the specific words are).

 

I agree we can't see it and have only the OPs words to go by.

[umpstu]

Well, he might be a slow runner since he got so far off first that he was close enough to be able to dive back into first. I have a balk.

[kylehutson]

22 hours ago, 834k3r said:

I assumed (yep, I know what happens when I do that) since PU was brushing off the plate, time had been called. To double-check, I went back to 42:07...and he didn't call time. I guess I made myself what the cliche says.

I've always preferred this one:

[umpstu]

On 7/18/2023 at 2:49 PM, Detridge said:

Would this be a balk? The guy was stealing from 1st and from what I've understood it is allowed as long as long as the runner on 1st steals. Go to 42:37 of the video.

 

Damn, it's a unicorn catching to start the top of first.

[umpstu]

2 minutes ago, umpstu said:

Damn, it's a unicorn catching to start the top of first.

And saw two women running onto the field to play.  Very cool.

[umpstu]

On 7/18/2023 at 2:49 PM, Detridge said:

Would this be a balk? The guy was stealing from 1st and from what I've understood it is allowed as long as long as the runner on 1st steals. Go to 42:37 of the video.

 

Now streaming it on a 55" tv and it looks really good.  Have to watch something.  Just seen steal of second and no player covered second.

[SeeingEyeDog]

On 7/18/2023 at 8:37 PM, 834k3r said:

I assumed (yep, I know what happens when I do that) since PU was brushing off the plate, time had been called. To double-check, I went back to 42:07...and he didn't call time. I guess I made myself what the cliche says.

Beaks, I've always liked how you .gif or meme yourself or whatever the cool kids call it today.

Me: He said assume! Gotta' find an assume meme to drop on Beaks! Oh...wait...he self-memed himself...[Homer groan]

~Dawg

[Jimurray]

3 hours ago, umpstu said:

Well, he might be a slow runner since he got so far off first that he was close enough to be able to dive back into first. I have a balk.

The dive back may have been because he was far enough off to give the impression that he was going or actually was going. It doesn't matter how fast or slow he was. OP says he was stealing. We don't have video of what he was doing and you can have a balk on that field if you don't think he was going or gave that impression.