Step to first and pitch?

[Replacematt]

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Using the rule book language, I can piece together three potential objections:

1) The way he lands and continues, he is establishing a second push off.  It is not with the pivot foot though.  I will say, NCAA language is a little sketchy here: it says "their foot" not necessarily "the pivot foot."  The second push off also does not have to be towards home plate.

2) The "without interruption or alteration" clause.  This is most definitely an alteration.  His windup seems fairly normal until he continues the lean and all of his movement goes towards first base. 

3) "All other matters not covered" as this clearly does not seem to fall within the spirit of the game.

 

Take those apart as you see fit.

 

I will also take a  opportunity to continue to say that a 45-degree angle +/- a few degrees is NOT "directly towards."  That interp is garbage.  

1) I don't think that is happening.
2) This is the only one that has legs, given the way the concept has expanded in the last two years (incorrectly, in my opinion, because it makes it way too vague and seems simply to keep pitchers from doing things because they look weird.)
3) Doesn't exist.

16 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

I will also take a  opportunity to continue to say that a 45-degree angle +/- a few degrees is NOT "directly towards."  That interp is garbage.  

Without it, there would be places a pitcher could step and not be legal to throw anywhere (assuming you mean that 45 degrees is too broad.) What's the alternative?

[noumpere]

In the recent past (maybe last summer), wasn't there some discussion about pitchers who did not take a full windup in an attempt to fool the batter (not a quick pitch)?  Did any of that guidance help with the current play (i.e., did any of that guidance talk about a step to the plate)?  I don't recall; just trying to see if there's something more clear out there.

[BLWizzRanger]

53 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

1) I don't think that is happening.
2) This is the only one that has legs, given the way the concept has expanded in the last two years (incorrectly, in my opinion, because it makes it way too vague and seems simply to keep pitchers from doing things because they look weird.)
3) Doesn't exist.

Without it, there would be places a pitcher could step and not be legal to throw anywhere (assuming you mean that 45 degrees is too broad.) What's the alternative?

<flame on>

Is the 45 degree "rule" the only rule that can't be adjudicated in a 2 man?  It is a guess each time it is called.

 

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, BLWizzRanger said:

<flame on>

Is the 45 degree "rule" the only rule that can't be adjudicated in a 2 man?  It is a guess each time it is called.

 

No.

PU has the best look at this. 

[Tog Gee]

Yeah we have to balk this. 

 

If pitcher ever stepped to second and threw to third it's an easy balk call.

The runner needs to be able to discern what the hell the pitcher is actually doing, and the free foot is an indicator.

[BLWizzRanger]

21 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

No.

PU has the best look at this. 

If the PU has the best look at this, then it is only by a minuscule amount and probably not enough to pick up that end of the stick.  Its still a guess on whether they break the 45 degree line or not.  

[The Man in Blue]

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

1) I don't think that is happening.
2) This is the only one that has legs, given the way the concept has expanded in the last two years (incorrectly, in my opinion, because it makes it way too vague and seems simply to keep pitchers from doing things because they look weird.)
3) Doesn't exist.

Without it, there would be places a pitcher could step and not be legal to throw anywhere (assuming you mean that 45 degrees is too broad.) What's the alternative?

 

Looking weird is not a balk.  Given the intent of the rule, you need to do a little work though.  I understand you like things spelled out (and the NCAA tries to oblige), but umpiring is more nuanced than that.  And yes, #3 exists and this is a prime example of why.

If there exists a liminal space where a pitcher could step but not legally throw anywhere, guess what the easy alternative is?  He cannot step there and legally throw somewhere/anywhere.  It's not that difficult.  If he steps there and throws somewhere, it is a balk.  If he steps there and doesn't throw, it's a balk.  In other words, trying to circumvent both the rule and he spirit of the rule by stepping in a vague area between home and first base (not "directly") is a balk.  

45 degrees is not "directly" which is the exact prescription in the rule.  Neither is 44 or 46, 43 or 47.  If you have to ask yourself if it was "directly", it wasn't.  If you have to debate over which umpire could see it, it wasn't "directly."

[grayhawk]

11 hours ago, Replacematt said:

No.

PU has the best look at this. 

I would argue that PU has the best look not only in 2 man, but in 3 man and 4 man as well.

[Replacematt]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I would argue that PU has the best look not only in 2 man, but in 3 man and 4 man as well.

Agree.

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Looking weird is not a balk. 

Yes. That is my point--that NCAA is trying to make it so, to a certain extent.

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

And yes, #3 exists and this is a prime example of why.

No, it isn't. Everything regarding gameplay is covered. Pitching motions are covered. 

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

45 degrees is not "directly" which is the exact prescription in the rule.  Neither is 44 or 46, 43 or 47.  If you have to ask yourself if it was "directly", it wasn't.  If you have to debate over which umpire could see it, it wasn't "directly."

It would behoove you to stop taking things so literally and learn what the rules mean, per the people that write them. They say the 45 is a thing. Do you honestly think that any deviation from a straight line to the base should be a balk?

[grayhawk]

18 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I would argue that PU has the best look not only in 2 man, but in 3 man and 4 man as well.

Agree.

I forgot to mention that when PU does call it in 3 or 4 man, get ready for an argument from the defensive coach. Not whether it was a balk or not, but why did YOU call it and not U1?!?!

[Replacematt]

2 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I forgot to mention that when PU does call it in 3 or 4 man, get ready for an argument from the defensive coach. Not whether it was a balk or not, but why did YOU call it and not U1?!?!

I'm always ready for an argument, if no one here could tell otherwise.

[BigBlue4u]

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I forgot to mention that when PU does call it in 3 or 4 man, get ready for an argument from the defensive coach. Not whether it was a balk or not, but why did YOU call it and not U1?!?!

This one is easy:  "Coach, don't ever come out here and tell me how to run this game. It was a balk and it got called."

[Velho]

7 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

13 hours ago, grayhawk said:

I forgot to mention that when PU does call it in 3 or 4 man, get ready for an argument from the defensive coach. Not whether it was a balk or not, but why did YOU call it and not U1?!?!

This one is easy:  "Coach, don't ever come out here and tell me how to run this game. It was a balk and it got called."

"Coach, it was the right call - unlike you leaving the starter in or sending that guy home last inning" - Oh, sorry.  Inside voice, inside voice, inside voice.

[BigBlue4u]

4 hours ago, Velho said:

"Coach, it was the right call - unlike you leaving the starter in or sending that guy home last inning" - Oh, sorry.  Inside voice, inside voice, inside voice.

🙂

 

[The Man in Blue]

 

On 6/2/2025 at 10:32 PM, grayhawk said:

I forgot to mention that when PU does call it in 3 or 4 man, get ready for an argument from the defensive coach. Not whether it was a balk or not, but why did YOU call it and not U1?!?!

22 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

This one is easy:  "Coach, don't ever come out here and tell me how to run this game. It was a balk and it got called."

 

I don't like the tact of that reply, but I am quickly jumping on this bandwagon.  "We just want the calls right" has quickly become code for "We just want the calls our way."  (Back to the UCLA/Tennessee softball game . . .)

Questioning which umpire made a correct call and why has joined "that's terrible/horrible" on my list of things that are quickly leaning towards automatic ejections.  They have become coded ways of being being personal insults via temper tantrums.

[MadMax]

On 5/31/2025 at 10:53 AM, Velho said:

Only need the smallest of ones to carry your MSU rulebook.

Nonsense. I’ve had… coworkers… early in my career who wore proverbial cargo pants… 

… and even some who wore overalls… with the center chest pocket, near-&-dear to his heart. 

On 6/1/2025 at 10:54 PM, The Man in Blue said:

And I am convinced it is an illegal pitch with nobody on.

What rule (for pitching with no one on) does F1 violate? A case can be made that if he has R3 (only, or R2-3, or R123), and declares “windup” and pitches in that same manner, that he’s stepping (enough) towards 1B while delivering the pitch (home) to constitute a Balk call. 
But from the windup? With no one on? This is akin to a (relief, typically) F1 pitching from the set, with no one on, and rolling thru a stop. 

[The Man in Blue]

I guess I am of the mindset that if it is illegal with runners on, it is illegal with no runners.

When pitching from the set with no one on, blowing through the stop is still technically illegal, correct?  Just because we use good sense and choose not to enforce it does not mean it is legal.

[Replacematt]

On 6/4/2025 at 8:18 PM, The Man in Blue said:

I guess I am of the mindset that if it is illegal with runners on, it is illegal with no runners.

When pitching from the set with no one on, blowing through the stop is still technically illegal, correct?  Just because we use good sense and choose not to enforce it does not mean it is legal.

Only in FED is that illegal.

If you notice the balk rule in the various sets, there's wording to the effect of "with a runner or runners on base..." This means that runners are a condition to make a certain action illegal. Without runners or being made illegal by another rule, these actions are legal.

[jimurrayalterego]

13 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Only in FED is that illegal.

If you notice the balk rule in the various sets, there's wording to the effect of "with a runner or runners on base..." This means that runners are a condition to make a certain action illegal. Without runners or being made illegal by another rule, these actions are legal.

And aside from the balk rule they also address and permit it elsewhere in notes or comments.

[The Man in Blue]

15 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Only in FED is that illegal.

If you notice the balk rule in the various sets, there's wording to the effect of "with a runner or runners on base..." This means that runners are a condition to make a certain action illegal. Without runners or being made illegal by another rule, these actions are legal.

I haven't dug before I say this . . . just working from faulty memory.

Or is "with runners on" referring to a balk vs. an illegal pitch (the penalty, not the action)?

[Replacematt]

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

I haven't dug before I say this . . . just working from faulty memory.

Or is "with runners on" referring to a balk vs. an illegal pitch (the penalty, not the action)?

Nope. There are only two actions that result illegal pitches--pitching while not engaged with the rubber, and quick pitches. The logic is actually reversed on these--they are always illegal, and with runners on, there is the additional penalty of a balk.

[DevildogUmp]

3 hours ago, Replacematt said:

Nope. There are only two actions that result illegal pitches--pitching while not engaged with the rubber, and quick pitches. The logic is actually reversed on these--they are always illegal, and with runners on, there is the additional penalty of a balk.

 

It is not an additional penalty; it is a different penalty. When there are runners on base we enforce the balk, not the illegal pitch (advance runner(s) vs ball on the batter)

[Replacematt]

On 6/6/2025 at 7:43 PM, DevildogUmp said:

 

It is not an additional penalty; it is a different penalty. When there are runners on base we enforce the balk, not the illegal pitch (advance runner(s) vs ball on the batter)

That is what I should have said.