Quote:
Originally Posted by egj13
Why would MLB put a comment with a particular rule interpretation and give an example of the play if it wasn't a common mistake made? I don't see what you guys are missing in the MLB comment.
|
Obviously.
Quote:
|
When a pitcher steps towards third and then wheels on that front foot and throws to first without stepping towards first AHEAD OF THE THROW it is a balk even though his back foot broke with the rubber...
|
No. If he wheels on the BACK foot and doesn't remove it from the rubber during the throw to third, then you have a balk.
You need to slowly read the part of the rule you are harping on. Here it is again so no one has to page back.
Quote:
|
However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk."
|
Note where it says "SUCH A MOVE". It says that in the move it's describing, it is nearly impossible to step directly toward first base, and in that move, you have a balk. THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE says "of course" --- if the pitcher steps off (not disengages; not steps BACK; steps OFF) the rubber and then makes "such a move" - i.e. wheeling and throwing to first --- it's NOT a balk.
I see where your assumption has gone wrong. I ask you to take your assumption of what they are talking about and try very hard to fit the final sentence into your assumption ... it doesn't fit.