noumpere Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Does 6-1 Art 3 apply here? Yes, it applies. I have the play as legal. Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Does 6-1 Art 3 apply here? I have a jabstep/jumpturn and a balk. MLBUM: (i) It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pickoff move to first base by first moving his pivot foot in the direction of third base provided that he makes a legal step toward first base with the non-pivot foot before throwing there and provided that the move is continuous and without interruption. A pitcher who makes such a pickoff move is considered to be in contact with the rubber when he makes his throw to first base. 3 Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted June 19 Report Posted June 19 2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Does 6-1 Art 3 apply Regarding the "After" question we have this 2016 Interp: "SITUATION 17: A left-handed pitcher attempts to pick-off the runner at first base. Simultaneously with his throw, the pitcher picks up his pivot foot and places it behind the pitcher’s plate. The throw bounces off the first baseman’s glove and goes into dead-ball territory. The base umpire awards the runner third base, ruling that the pitcher was an infielder and the award is two bases. RULING: The award should be second base; only one base. The status of the pitcher at the time he made the attempted pick-off throw was still that of a pitcher, not an infielder. After the pitcher places his pivot foot on the ground clearly behind the pitcher’s plate, his status then changes to that of an infielder. Moving his pivot foot at the same time he attempts the pick-off does not change his status as a pitcher. (6-1-3, 8-3-3d)" 2 Quote
JonnyCat Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 8 hours ago, jimurrayalterego said: I have a jabstep/jumpturn and a balk Agreed. I have the same thing. Quote
Velho Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 For compare and contrast, this was the no balk steal of home in the College WS opener Zoom in on F1 Quote
Velho Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 Embedded video West Virgina Troy Steal Home No Balk Step Off College World Series 2026.06.12.mov West Virgina Troy Steal Home No Balk Step Off College World Series ZOOM IN F1 2026.06.12.mov Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 45 minutes ago, Velho said: Embedded video West Virgina Troy Steal Home No Balk Step Off College World Series 2026.06.12.mov West Virgina Troy Steal Home No Balk Step Off College World Series ZOOM IN F1 2026.06.12.mov R3 took umps off the hook by getting in. The step off occurred after F1 came set and then started arm motion to pitch which would be immediate balk. I would not have caught that start of motion myself in real time and probably would not have caught the step off. R3 being safe would have taken me off the hook also. 1 Quote
grayhawk Posted June 20 Report Posted June 20 In the NCAA play, the crew ruled that F1 disengaged. I trust Van Rapp's judgment on this over our grainy, distant video. 2 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted June 20 Author Report Posted June 20 54 minutes ago, grayhawk said: I trust Van Rapp's judgment on this over our grainy, distant video. This the answer. Quote
dumbdumb Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 so, if no step off rubber by Troy, would a balk have been from something the pitcher did, or the catcher running up in front of the plate to catch the ball, rather than letting the the ball cross the plate first. wasn't there some situation where the catcher ran in front of the plate, but ran mostly through the river to get there, and people said that was not stepping through the 17 inch plate, it was going around it and would not be a balk caused by the catcher for being in front of the plate. Quote
johnnyg08 Posted June 21 Author Report Posted June 21 12 hours ago, dumbdumb said: so, if no step off rubber by Troy, would a balk have been from something the pitcher did, or the catcher running up in front of the plate to catch the ball, rather than letting the the ball cross the plate first. wasn't there some situation where the catcher ran in front of the plate, but ran mostly through the river to get there, and people said that was not stepping through the 17 inch plate, it was going around it and would not be a balk caused by the catcher for being in front of the plate. Yes. I remember this scenario coming up on the forums! Minus the disengagement, this would have been a balk b/c of 'pitch' did not cross the foul line Quote
Velho Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 22 hours ago, grayhawk said: In the NCAA play, the crew ruled that F1 disengaged. I trust Van Rapp's judgment on this over our grainy, distant video. They were on top of it. This was in the first inning. We got to be ready from the jump. Quote
jimurrayalterego Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Yes. I remember this scenario coming up on the forums! Minus the disengagement, this would have been a balk b/c of 'pitch' did not cross the foul line Is that the rationale the rule writers used in OBR/NCAA to penalize CI on a squeeze or steal. I thought it just was their way to advance all runners. We don't call that balk in FED for CI with a runner trying to score. We just advance runners that were stealing on the pitch. Quote
Thatsnotyou Posted June 21 Report Posted June 21 1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said: Is that the rationale the rule writers used in OBR/NCAA to penalize CI on a squeeze or steal. I thought it just was their way to advance all runners. We don't call that balk in FED for CI with a runner trying to score. We just advance runners that were stealing on the pitch. Why isn’t the batter getting first? Quote
johnnyg08 Posted June 21 Author Report Posted June 21 3 minutes ago, Thatsnotyou said: Why isn’t the batter getting first? If the NCAA play, the pitcher disengaged the rubber making him an infielder vs a pitcher. Quote
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.