'24-'25 Timing rules Appendix F #7

[Richvee]

Is my reading comprehension slipping, or is something wrong here? 

'23 - '24 rule book.

"With runners on base, the pitcher may attempt as many pickoff throws in an attempt to retire a runner as desired. The pickoff throw may be made by stepping toward an occupied base directly from the pitcher's plate or after stepping off the pitcher's plate and immediately making a play on a runner. The time limit will stop and reset when the ball is returned to the pitcher on the mound"

 

easy enough....Now, the '24 - '25 version

 

7 With runners on base, the pitcher may attempt as many pickoff throws in a legitimate attempt to retire a runner as desired. The pickoff throw may be made by stepping toward an occupied base directly from the pitcher’s plate, [throw or feint a throw toward any base when it is not an attempt to retire a runner or prevent the runner from advancing] or after stepping off the pitcher’s plate and immediately making a play on a runner. The time limit will stop and reset when the ball is returned to the pitcher on the mound. Any pickoff throw that is not a legitimate attempt to retire a runner is a violation, and a ball will be added to the batter’s count.

The bolded is NOT in blue in the new book. ( I added the brackets and bold for appearance) Where did this come from and WTH does it mean? 

[grayhawk]

You got me. It would make sense of the bolded was:

[throw or feint a throw toward any base when it is not an attempt to retire a runner or prevent the runner from advancing] 

Thereby adding the ability to step and throw to an unoccupied base when a runner is giving the appearance that they are stealing. Feinting uses up a reset, so it makes no sense to include that.

[Richvee]

OK. I feel better. It’s not just me. I have a feeling we’ll be told to strike that line from the book during our on line clinic. 

[The Man in Blue]

Outsider reading in . . . if the play isn't close, or if the fielder doesn't even put a tag on, it sounds like a violation.  [stirring the pot]

[Velho]

I imagine they are trying to get rid of the step off and perfunctory "feint" arm motion at the runner - which had been a loophole to get a no penalty disengagement?

Not saying they did a good job but looking for the motivation of the change.

[Richvee]

47 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Outsider reading in . . . if the play isn't close, or if the fielder doesn't even put a tag on, it sounds like a violation.  [stirring the pot]

When taken in conjunction with all the other clock rules for NCAA, you would see that just stepping off is a “reset”. (One per batter). After one reset , a ball is called. Also, “legitimate “ attempt. Example- r2. F1 spins and throws a lob to F4 standing nowhere near 2B while R2 never even took a lead. Is not a legitimate attempt and a ball is called. 
 

What’s strange, is, when NCAA changes or adds to a rule, the new language is highlighted blue. This part I bolded isn’t in last year’s book, and is not Blue in the 24-25 book. 

[Richvee]

2 minutes ago, Velho said:

I imagine they are trying to get rid of the step off and perfunctory "feint" arm motion at the runner - which had been a loophole to get a no penalty disengagement?

Not saying they did a good job but looking for the motivation of the change.

Stepping off without a throw (including just an arm fake) is already addressed as a reset. (One per batter) 

[grayhawk]

13 hours ago, Velho said:

I imagine they are trying to get rid of the step off and perfunctory "feint" arm motion at the runner - which had been a loophole to get a no penalty disengagement?

Not saying they did a good job but looking for the motivation of the change.

They got rid of that in the last rule change. A simple feint is a reset, and if the reset had already been used for that batter, then it's a violation and a ball.

[Replacematt]

Late to the party...

Occam's razor tells me that this entire section in question was mistakenly added (maybe pasted from a draft of a different rule?) due to its lack of highlighting, lack of verb tense agreement, and lack of relevance to context.

In fact, I would say that the different rule is 9-3-c, in which the clause in question was added in 2023.

[JSam21]

I'm guessing that this is an editing error. I would shoot the whole paragraph to Randy and ask him. 

 

[JSam21]

Just now, JSam21 said: