Jimurray Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noumpere Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 1 hour ago, Jimurray said: Absolutely a balk. He didn't step ahead of the throw. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 2 hours ago, noumpere said: Absolutely a balk. He didn't step ahead of the throw. Devil's advocate . . . the rule doesn't say WHICH FOOT has to step towards the base. Also, does he have to step if he disengages? Then he is a fielder. I am not convinced he was disengaged (stepped back far enough to clear the plate), but I think what he was trying to accomplish was legal if done properly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Velho Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 I had a knee pop. After that, his left foot gained ground towards 2B but didn't clear the rubber (does it have to?) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven Posted June 9 Report Share Posted June 9 2 hours ago, noumpere said: Absolutely a balk. He didn't step ahead of the throw. Agree. Nor did he disengage, but stepped on (not behind) the rubber. 11 minutes ago, Velho said: I had a knee pop. After that, his left foot gained ground towards 2B but didn't clear the rubber (does it have to?) The "knee pop" is usually called on the knee of the free foot. And the foot that must gain distance/direction is the free foot—he stepped toward 2B with his pivot (which made the throw look weird). 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 6 hours ago, maven said: Agree. Nor did he disengage, but stepped on (not behind) the rubber. The "knee pop" is usually called on the knee of the free foot. And the foot that must gain distance/direction is the free foot—he stepped toward 2B with his pivot (which made the throw look weird). I agree with what you are saying, but I will again say . . . Devil's Advocate. We have conventionally treated the front foot as the foot we are observing, however the rule doesn't say that. Had the pivot foot cleared the pitcher's plate, we have a step "directly toward such base before making the throw." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noumpere Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Man in Blue Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 Thank you @noumpere . . . Where is that from because it is not in the OBR book? (Cueing up another rant about being able to umpire from the rule book . . . 😉) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
834k3r Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 21 hours ago, maven said: Nor did he disengage, but stepped on (not behind) the rubber. I'd balk it for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maven Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 1 minute ago, 834k3r said: I'd balk it for this. And be prepared to explain it to the coach who taught him to do it. As someone has already said, this move CAN be done correctly, provided the pivot lands behind the rubber. I'm probably not too technical on that—edge of the heel on the rubber gets a pass—but that's not what happened here. We're also not technical on the timing. Just as with a disengagement + feint to 1B, we're OK if the hands separate before the foot touches on the ground. Technically, the foot must land before the hands separate (he must be an infielder to be permitted to feint to 1B), but nobody enforces that. Once that pivot foot moves, the runner should be heading back anyway, so it's not a significant advantage to allow the motions to be simultaneous. We also don't care that the pivot foot turns while disengaging. The restriction on F1 specifies that disengagement must involve the pivot foot stepping back and "behind" the rubber. So on the rubber is not OK, but turning the foot is fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
834k3r Posted June 10 Report Share Posted June 10 50 minutes ago, maven said: provided the pivot lands behind the rubber 52 minutes ago, maven said: So on the rubber is not OK, but turning the foot is fine. These are the key points--not to understate the rest of your points. I'd absolutely be able to explain that to a DHC or F1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.