Wed Feb 21, 2001, 04:00pm
|
|
Official Forum Member
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 289
|
|
|
Okay ,you're right.....
I'm going to s l o w down when reading from now on.
But, I still think next years test should include a video.....
Quote:
Originally posted by Jim Mills
Quote:
Originally posted by Rog
Quote:
Originally posted by GarthB
FED????
If so, I assume Pitcher was in Set, since he can't pick off from wind-up.
From the set, a step sideways by the pitcher is a step back off the rubber. (or front off the rubber)
So what you mean by sideways? Towards first? Towards Third? Toward Home? Towards Second?
GB
|
Garth:
This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.
Typical Fed question it sems.
See:
http://www.nfhs.org/rules-baseball.htm
"Situation 16"
The ruling is a balk; but, the situation is a bit vague.....
|
I didn't think it was unclear, as FED goes. There was R3 (FED called it R1 on third base). The pitcher took a legal pitching position in the windup. I admit, I inferred the windup because it says he engages the rubber with both hands together in front of his body. That is illegal if F1 wants to take the set position.
From the windup, F1 may deliver to the batter, or step off legally. He may not attempt a pick-off without legally disengaging first.
His step-off sideways was with the pivot foot toward third base, not off the back of the rubber. That is not a legal disengagement--balk. It is a balk irrespective of whether F1 was in the windup or the set.
The point seemed to be that merely because F1 is in the windup does not mean he cannot attempt a pickoff. He just can't attempt it from the rubber. All they were asking was for a ruling on the legality of the stepoff.
I certainly can understand if someone interpreted it as Garth did, but my reading was that they first wanted us to see F1 legally engage the rubber before ruling on the ensuing action.
|
|