Windup from Set with R1

[Velho]

Doesn't F1 have to declare they are going to the windup from the sideways pitching position?

This one was apparently undeclared, or at least done quietly enough it was a surprise to everyone - including the batter who struck out. (I don't have full MLB games access to confirm).

Anyone have insight into why this wasn't a balk?

 

 

[Jimurray]

44 minutes ago, Velho said:

Doesn't F1 have to declare they are going to the windup from the sideways pitching position?

This one was apparently undeclared, or at least done quietly enough it was a surprise to everyone - including the batter who struck out. (I don't have full MLB games access to confirm).

Anyone have insight into why this wasn't a balk?

 

 

He isn’t sideways. 

[grayhawk]

10 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He isn’t sideways. 

In fact, both feet are perpendicular to the rubber as he begins his windup.

[Velho]

44 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

53 minutes ago, Jimurray said:

He isn’t sideways. 

In fact, both feet are perpendicular to the rubber as he begins his windup.

Thanks for the correction. That answers a lot.

Still not sure why McNeil took the strike.

[MadMax]

On 9/30/2025 at 10:39 PM, grayhawk said:

In fact, both feet are perpendicular to the rubber as he begins his windup.

I’m the one that commissioned @Velho to post this play. When I saw it during the Condensed Game replay, I’ll admit, I was befuddled. 

F1 is clearly in the windup, and actually turns and takes that drop-step towards 1B, then delivers the pitch. In all my travels, I have encountered colleagues who have called it a Balk (immediately, mind you), citing that “step (move) towards 1B”. Then, in post-games, or in class/clinics, they defend it, typically centering on what F1 can/cannot do with a R1. 

Obviously, 4 Professional Umpires didn’t call it; if they had, it would have been delayed (understandably), but… McNeil took that as Strike 3, and struck out (and the strikeout stood). 

So, was this a (missed) Balk? Anyone going to defend it as a Balk? 

If this goes unjustified, then at the very least, I requested Velho to post it for posterity… we can refer back to it here if we have someone down the road claim “it’s a Balk” when F1 pitches from the windup, and we can actually show it with video. 

[Jimurray]

10 hours ago, MadMax said:

I’m the one that commissioned @Velho to post this play. When I saw it during the Condensed Game replay, I’ll admit, I was befuddled. 

F1 is clearly in the windup, and actually turns and takes that drop-step towards 1B, then delivers the pitch. In all my travels, I have encountered colleagues who have called it a Balk (immediately, mind you), citing that “step (move) towards 1B”. Then, in post-games, or in class/clinics, they defend it, typically centering on what F1 can/cannot do with a R1. 

Obviously, 4 Professional Umpires didn’t call it; if they had, it would have been delayed (understandably), but… McNeil took that as Strike 3, and struck out (and the strikeout stood). 

So, was this a (missed) Balk? Anyone going to defend it as a Balk? 

If this goes unjustified, then at the very least, I requested Velho to post it for posterity… we can refer back to it here if we have someone down the road claim “it’s a Balk” when F1 pitches from the windup, and we can actually show it with video. 

That’s not a balk. The free foot can step in any direction in OBR. NCAA has an inane interp that doesnt allow a traditional windup pitcher to take that stutter step toward home and would balk that pitcher if the stutter strep went more to home instead of 1B. Most pitchers these days in the traditional perpendicular windup position don’t do the traditional step back windup delivery. They take a stutter step to allow turning their pivot foot sideways and actually deliver from a sideways or hybrid pivot foot orientation. 

[grayhawk]

13 hours ago, MadMax said:

I have encountered colleagues who have called it a Balk (immediately, mind you), citing that “step (move) towards 1B”. Then, in post-games, or in class/clinics, they defend it, typically centering on what F1 can/cannot do with a R1. 

Those umpires, clearly, need better training.

[jimurrayalterego]

50 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Those umpires, clearly, need better training.

Examples of square windup pitchers using stutter step to deliver sideways. Both legal in OBR. I don't know if Randy Bruns still has an issue with the forward stutter step in NCAA. In years past he was literally enforcing the wording of not taking a second step toward home which would make the black uniform pitcher illegal.

 

[jimurrayalterego]

14 hours ago, MadMax said:

 

Obviously, 4 Professional Umpires didn’t call it; if they had, it would have been delayed (understandably), but… McNeil took that as Strike 3, and struck out (and the strikeout stood). 

 

I'm getting the impression you seem to think they might have missed calling it after the pitch was delivered and the ball wasn't put into play. Just to be clear this is not a balk but if the MLB umps were to call a balk for some other reason it would be called immediately. What would be delayed would be the call of "time" depending on what happened.

[jimurrayalterego]

15 hours ago, MadMax said:

Then, in post-games, or in class/clinics, they defend it, typically centering on what F1 can/cannot do with a R1. 

 

 

You need to ask them where the rule book restricts a pitcher's choice of delivery. No matter what the runner config, if a pitcher/game sit doesn't care if the runner steals he might prefer to deliver his best pitch from the windup. Do your guys balk a conventional windup pitcher who backward steps toward 2B with R2 there when the bases are loaded?

[BLWizzRanger]

IDK, seems like it would be easier to say, 'in the windup, one step is allowed with the non-pivot foot to proceed the final placement of the pivot foot.'

[grayhawk]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

I don't know if Randy Bruns still has an issue with the forward stutter step in NCAA.

He does. It was refined last year that if the free foot "gains ground" toward the plate on the windup, that it's illegal.

[jimurrayalterego]

14 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

He does. It was refined last year that if the free foot "gains ground" toward the plate on the windup, that it's illegal.

Oh well.

[dumbdumb]

and does gain ground mean if the foot moves 2 inches towards home out of the spot it is in or does it mean they move their whole foot totally forward out of the spot it is in which would be about at least 12 inches forward, depending on how big your foot is, some may be 8 inches and some 18 inches. 

this is in reference to some rules where the left hander on a pickoff to first has to make their whole foot pass the back edge but in some areas it is if just the front edge or toe crosses the back edge.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, dumbdumb said:

and does gain ground mean if the foot moves 2 inches towards home out of the spot it is in or does it mean they move their whole foot totally forward out of the spot it is in which would be about at least 12 inches forward, depending on how big your foot is, some may be 8 inches and some 18 inches. 

this is in reference to some rules where the left hander on a pickoff to first has to make their whole foot pass the back edge but in some areas it is if just the front edge or toe crosses the back edge.

I argued in this Facebook post to no avail. The sycophants all said the second example was illegal. Whether that is actually being called in the real world games I don't know. 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/465162970169200/?multi_permalinks=3931889993496463&hoisted_section_header_type=recently_seen&__cft__[0]=AZUDRY95yyEy2qbW-BCrR7RxANY5ZrsAV_RnPLJFZK6BAsWMxjh--VIi5aM9_HwbEX9HXIeULk528JZp7ymDGMPGit53R0PR0H-H2lmSMWsmxFXVddbfOLDiTodjwfbEMetDQDwSvOwhZbM6wT3l6vj8qE3VddYVziNrcouNALbEWA&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

[MadMax]

On 10/3/2025 at 1:09 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

I'm getting the impression you seem to think they might have missed calling it after the pitch was delivered and the ball wasn't put into play.

No, not at all. I would / am not (be) calling this a Balk either. However, as I said, I've been adjacent to fellow umpires who have called this before. I saw this as an ideal case-play or visual example so as to defeat / neutralize their "rationale" or justification. 

In my experience, working with and around so many different umpires, in so many different and far-flung environments, I have found that describing such events as Balks are ineffective; instead, showing what constitutes a Balk is far more effective.