Throwing to F3 off the base.

[jimurrayalterego]

Don't we have an obvious attempt to retire the runner in the second pick also?

 

[The Man in Blue]

Can it be an obvious attempt if F3 is not in a position to be able to retire the runner?  

I've got a balk.

If Altuve had continued back to the bag on the first one . . . obstruction, anybody?

[jimurrayalterego]

8 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Can it be an obvious attempt if F3 is not in a position to be able to retire the runner?  

I've got a balk.

If Altuve had continued back to the bag on the first one . . . obstruction, anybody?

You haven't seen Evan's video I guess. Back then the criteria was if there was a play on. But things could have changed. It happened again today with LAA - Yankees. It will show up in Boones ejection when CCS reports on it.

[Velho]

Disclosure: Biased party (Go M's)

13 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Can it be an obvious attempt if F3 is not in a position to be able to retire the runner? 

The tag was closer than one would think for "not in a position to be able to retire the runner"

[The Man in Blue]

6 hours ago, Velho said:

Disclosure: Biased party (Go M's)

The tag was closer than one would think for "not in a position to be able to retire the runner"

 

Fair point . . . 

. . . and the first car wreck I was involved in was a lady who ran a stop sign "but almost made it."  That was her legal defense for clipping me.  Guess who was wrong (and not "almost right")?

[jimurrayalterego]

Just saw this MLB technique at 1B trickle down to FED in a playoff game. Not a balk in NFHS. Don't know about MLB or NCAA now.

[The Man in Blue]

Umm … potentially a violation in NFHS.  Again, dependent upon the positioning of the player receiving the throw in relation to the runner.

However the penalty is far more interesting than a balk …

 

 

I’m in a mood today, but I am relishing the idea of “Time! You can’t do that!”

Coach: “If it’s a balk, why didn’t you advance the runner?”

Me: “It’s not a balk, but I’m telling you he can’t do it.”

Coach: “Ok, sure.  [to his pitcher] It’s not a balk, do it again.”

Me: 

 

If you want the balk, you’ll probably have to go with the “step directly to the base” clause (although it allows a throw to “drive a runner back”).

 

[jimurrayalterego]

2 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Umm … potentially a violation in NFHS.  Again, dependent upon the positioning of the player receiving the throw in relation to the runner.

However the penalty is far more interesting than a balk …

 

 

I’m in a mood today, but I am relishing the idea of “Time! You can’t do that!”

Coach: “If it’s a balk, why didn’t you advance the runner?”

Me: “It’s not a balk, but I’m telling you he can’t do it.”

Coach: “Ok, sure.  [to his pitcher] It’s not a balk, do it again.”

Me: 

 

If you want the balk, you’ll probably have to go with the “step directly to the base” clause (although it allows a throw to “drive a runner back”).

 

Stepping directly to A base is not limited to 1B. But you can step and throw to a fielder not at 2B and in FED 3B because you can feint to those bases. Throwing to F3 off 1B base would be a balk because you can't feint there. But FED probably derived their caseplay where it's not a balk if you thought F3 was close enough to legitimately make a play from the original MLB guidance that was if you thought there was a play or deke on it was not a balk to throw to F3 off the base. I think that's changed as MLB probably wants more base stealing and doesn't like the latest F3 positioning which gives him an advantage.

[WIUMP]

[jimurrayalterego]

48 minutes ago, WIUMP said:

So from your coach mindset, this seems to give an advantage to F3 and is legal in FED. Would you defend by having your R1 finish his lead with a slight step forward to be abeam F3? Any dive back would then be OBS with any R1 F3 contact.

[WIUMP]

36 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

So from your coach mindset, this seems to give an advantage to F3 and is legal in FED. Would you defend by having your R1 finish his lead with a slight step forward to be abeam F3? Any dive back would then be OBS with any R1 F3 contact.

In coaching runners, I don't think anything has to change. I'm definitely not using OBS as a strategy, though I've seen video of rundowns where this type of strategy is being employed. In this scenario, R1 is still keying off of the pitcher and the position of F3 doesn't matter. Get out to your lead, read the pitcher, execute what ever the next phase is; secondary lead, advancing to 2B, returning to 1B, etc.. The Naylor deke only worked because the runner was keying on F3, not F1.

Also consider that I coach at the amateur level where my athletes are not full-time baseball players. I need to keep things as simple as possible and spend my practice time working on executing simple. At high-level college and professional baseball, there is a lot more time to incorporate more complexity into parts of the game that is not practical at the amateur level.

The advantage here for the defense is F3 is able to be in a better position to field a batted ball compared with the traditional positioning for holding a runner. My guess is the Mariners, while using this positioning, observed that R1 could be deked by F3 and an actual play evolved from that knowledge.

[The Man in Blue]

22 hours ago, WIUMP said:

 

My only beef with that is the use of "close enough to the base" as opposed to "close enough to the runner."  A play can occur anywhere, not just the base.

[The Man in Blue]

23 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said:

Stepping directly to A base is not limited to 1B. But you can step and throw to a fielder not at 2B and in FED 3B because you can feint to those bases. Throwing to F3 off 1B base would be a balk because you can't feint there. But FED probably derived their caseplay where it's not a balk if you thought F3 was close enough to legitimately make a play from the original MLB guidance that was if you thought there was a play or deke on it was not a balk to throw to F3 off the base. I think that's changed as MLB probably wants more base stealing and doesn't like the latest F3 positioning which gives him an advantage.

 

You can step to the base and still throw away from the base.  If a person were to argue otherwise, then I would suggest it is ammunition for my claim that "anything more than 45 degrees is directly to the base" is bull$#!+. 

A throw is not a feint.  A feint is a feint.

My point was that a throw that is not in a position to make a play is a delay of game and has a different penalty.

[jimurrayalterego]

32 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

 

You can step to the base and still throw away from the base.  If a person were to argue otherwise, then I would suggest it is ammunition for my claim that "anything more than 45 degrees is directly to the base" is bull$#!+. 

A throw is not a feint.  A feint is a feint.

My point was that a throw that is not in a position to make a play is a delay of game and has a different penalty.

In OBR a throw to a fielder off of a base you can't feint to is a failure to complete the throw:

"6.02(a)(2) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;"

which is why F1 seeing no one covering or making a play can throw directly to 1B and it's not a balk.

You might have a problem with FED wording. I don't. I call it by the caseplay.

Are you saying you are enforcing the delay of game warning on F1 who makes a move toward R2 but seeing F6 and F4 not covering thinks he needs to make the throw to one of them or be balked so he throws.

[The Man in Blue]

56 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

In OBR a throw to a fielder off of a base you can't feint to is a failure to complete the throw:

"6.02(a)(2) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;"

More bad grammar from the rule books.  

57 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

You might have a problem with FED wording. I don't. I call it by the caseplay.

Are you saying you are enforcing the delay of game warning on F1 who makes a move toward R2 but seeing F6 and F4 not covering thinks he needs to make the throw to one of them or be balked so he throws.

Sure, why not?  We know he does not need to make that throw, it is not our fault he doesn't know that.  

Honestly, I have no strong opinion other than this is another broken loop in the rule book where things point to things that ignore things that refer back to things that point to things . . .