Answer to second one-question test

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by oregonblue

For the purposes of a feint, does the definition of a throwing motion mean a movement that brings the hand of the throwing arm over the top or to the side, fully completing a simulated throw? Or can F1 after the set, step to 3rd with free foot, abruptly move his body to a "pre-throwing" position (for RH, left elbow to 3rd and right elbow to 1st, hands separating only slightly (if at all), then the pivot towards 1st and a throw from the rubber, with the appropriate step? (of course for RH F1, duh!!!)

THe "full motion" is not required. I think of it as anything (other than the step, of course) that would commit the pitcher to a pitch, if the motion were toward the plate.

(Sure, I'm sure someone can come up with a case where that's not strictly true, but it's the guideline I use.)

[Bfair]

Carl's original situation stipulated UNDER FED RULE. Fed rule requires non-pivot foot to step to base before throw or feint. Carl's answer indicated actions of F1 in situation would be balk RESULTING from his lack of arm movement in feint to 3rd.

Is this FACT or OPINION that there must be arm movement to be considered a legal feint? I certainly agree that arm movement without a throw is a feint, but that doesn't mean there are not other ways to feint which do not include arm movement. This is evidenced by Carl's second post discussing feinting of a bunt and a tag (although certainly not expected of F1 while pitching). Point being, however, the feint is, as defined by Carl, "a deceptive action designed to draw one's attention away from a real purpose."
Therefore, a feint COULD only be a legal step to a base with or without arm movement. It MIGHT be accompanied by a shoulder movement, hand split, fake throw, etc. , but I have yet to find anything stating it is REQUIRED. I ask again how it is addressed by JEA or J/R.

I know, Carl, that your second post references OBR which says "feints a throw", but I refute the argument by saying that this is not the ONLY way a pitcher may feint. Again I note, Fed casebook 6.2.4d references a feint of a shoulder (thereby acknowledging feint does not have to be arm movement).


In closing I ask ANYONE who may feel arm movement is REQUIRED to address situation of F1 legally bringing non-pivot foot to 2nd but not feinting a throw. We all know this has not been called a balk, yet according to the interpretation requiring arm motion it should be. Have we been missing it for all these years ??? Why has no one addressed this situation except those favoring interpretation that arm movement is not necessary?

Finally, the point Carl raises regarding OBR not addressing movement of the non-pivot foot on a feint is outstanding. I had no idea it was overlooked in OBR wording (as I suspect most didn't). I am happy to accept Carl's efforts in checking this out and finding that it should be interpreted the same as Fed. Excellent point Carl.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
In closing I ask ANYONE who may feel arm movement is REQUIRED to address situation of F1 legally bringing non-pivot foot to 2nd but not feinting a throw. We all know this has not been called a balk, yet according to the interpretation requiring arm motion it should be. Have we been missing it for all these years ??? Why has no one addressed this situation except those favoring interpretation that arm movement is not necessary?

I have never seen a pitcher step toward second (as in a feint) and not move his hands as in the start of a throw (which isn't implying that the pitcher made a full throwing motion and jsut didn't release the ball).

You seem to be implying that a picher goes to the set position, then steps toward second and ends up in the "set position" again, but now facing the opposite direction. I've never seen that.

Read the case (6.2.4d) again ... "He might ... step and feint, then turn..." "If F1 steps and feints to first, ..." Think about how the rule (and Carl's play) would be different if the case book didn't have the words "and feint" in those sentences.

[Bfair]

Bob, I thank you for your honest reply. Carl seems to think I am a joke ss I disagree with him at times requesting more documented information and not just accepting opinion.

Premise of question was per Fed rule:
I understand what you are saying in that there is NO ARM MOVEMENT whatsoever, and that Fed casebook 6.2.4d refers to the step and the feint as 2 separate points. Good Point. But again, it also refers to "feinting with a shoulder"! I would hope you agree that it means you can feint without arm movement. I also hope you would agree that IN REALITY a pitcher legally stepping to a base and having no motion whatsoever (i.e., dropping of hands, splitting of hands, arm motion) is highly unlikely. However, "not feinting a throw" is quite possible and occurs frequently with the R2 scenerio.

I see point at issue here as whether there has to be a "feint of a throw" in order for the move to be legal. Carl's response to his question was that F1 balked because "he did not feint a throw". I do not feel the rules nor interpretations REQUIRE a "feint of a throw" as opposed to any type of legal feint. Such legal feint could be the body movement itself after legally stepping to base.
If we require the "feint of a throw" in Carl's situation, then we should require it in the R2 pickoff scenerio. If Carl is correct in his interpretation, that would mean we have been missing the balks on the R2 scenerio for years.
I can't see pemalizing F1 in Carl's situation for "not feinting a throw" while continuing not to pemalize F1 for "not feinting a throw" in the R2 scenerio. That is highly inconsistent.
Does JEA or J/R address requirement of arm motion as part of a feint??

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair
Bob, I thank you for your honest reply. Carl seems to think I am a joke ss I disagree with him at times requesting more documented information and not just accepting opinion.

Premise of question was per Fed rule:
I understand what you are saying in that there is NO ARM MOVEMENT whatsoever, and that Fed casebook 6.2.4d refers to the step and the feint as 2 separate points. Good Point. But again, it also refers to "feinting with a shoulder"! I would hope you agree that it means you can feint without arm movement. I also hope you would agree that IN REALITY a pitcher legally stepping to a base and having no motion whatsoever (i.e., dropping of hands, splitting of hands, arm motion) is highly unlikely. However, "not feinting a throw" is quite possible and occurs frequently with the R2 scenerio.

I see point at issue here as whether there has to be a "feint of a throw" in order for the move to be legal. Carl's response to his question was that F1 balked because "he did not feint a throw". I do not feel the rules nor interpretations REQUIRE a "feint of a throw" as opposed to any type of legal feint. Such legal feint could be the body movement itself after legally stepping to base.
If we require the "feint of a throw" in Carl's situation, then we should require it in the R2 pickoff scenerio. If Carl is correct in his interpretation, that would mean we have been missing the balks on the R2 scenerio for years.
I can't see pemalizing F1 in Carl's situation for "not feinting a throw" while continuing not to pemalize F1 for "not feinting a throw" in the R2 scenerio. That is highly inconsistent.
Does JEA or J/R address requirement of arm motion as part of a feint??

There is no distinction (in this case) between "feinting" and "feinting a throw" -- what the hell else is F1 feinting? He's not feinting a bunt, he's not feinting a tag, he's not feinting scratching his balls (he might actually be dong this).

I explained this above -- if the motion is such that it would require a pitch, then it's a feint (of a throw). A shoulder motion would likely qualify. The rule is clearly defined. Do you think the shoulder movement "simulated the start of a throw"? If so, it's not a balk. If not (and there is no other movement that qualifies), it's not.

You've asked before, on this board or another, about JEA and J/R. You got an answer. Besides, they apply to OBR and you've specifically asked about FED.

FWIW, I don't think Carl thinks you're a joke when you disagree with him.

Also FWIW, I share his frustration at your approach. It's like we're being cross-examined on our reading of the rules. An objection of "asked and answered" would be sustained. (To be clear, if I give an answer, it's fair to ask how I arrived at that. If you don't like how I arrived at it, don't use it. If you have an alternate reading, or a different source that contradicts what I wrote, cite it. That's all good. Just don't keep repeating, "I disagree.")

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
Finally, the point Carl raises regarding OBR not addressing movement of the non-pivot foot on a feint is outstanding. I had no idea it was overlooked in OBR wording (as I suspect most didn't). I am happy to accept Carl's efforts in checking this out and finding that it should be interpreted the same as Fed. Excellent point Carl.

The professional interpretation is that any feint should be preceeded by a legal step, despite the wording (or lack of it) in the OBR. This is identical to the FED position, as Carl has noted. Here is what JEA has to say on the subject:

"Customs and Usage: A pitcher may not feint a throw to 1st base, but he can feint a throw to other bases if he steps legally." [Rule 8.05(b)]

Just thought you'd like to see it in B&W (grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson

[Bfair]

Thanks Warren, but I promise I'll only say thanks one time! (grin)
I'll learn, slow as I may be.

[Thom Coste]

Would it help any, or change anybody's mind, to realize that the Federation actually DOES define a feint?

"A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or throw to a base and which is used in an attempt to deceive a runner."

This can be found in Rule 2, Section 28, Art.5.

Does this, then, require arm movement?

[chris s]

Originally posted by Thom Coste
Would it help any, or change anybody's mind, to realize that the Federation actually DOES define a feint?

"A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or throw to a base and which is used in an attempt to deceive a runner."

This can be found in Rule 2, Section 28, Art.5.

Does this, then, require arm movement?

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
You guys are killing me(grin)! A step and a shoulder jerk is a feint, no? Carl was right on earlier in this thread, a feint is a FAKE, is it a deke move, if yes, then feint. In fed, no arm movement is required, I look at the shoulder, it is attached to the arm-bone, which is connected to the..........LOL

[oregonblue]

All please remember that I said something about being devil's advocate in my last post. I am not implying that anyone is WRONG on this issue. Just trying to push the discussion envelope. We did get more input and even Papa C gave us more data. Is it bad to stir the pot if we get more participation?

Carl, I do not doubt your positions and interpretations any more or any less than anyone else's. AS I said earlier, you (and Warren and Jenkins and others) are "erudite"!!! I am learning from all of you . Please don't gripe at the student that asks more questions.

[GarthB]

Hayes:

I believe the original quiz was stated thus:

"FED rules: F1 steps to occupied third, (1) does not make any arm motion, wheels, (2) remains on the rubber, and picks off R1."

You have quoted J/R's opinion regarding the OBR rule.

As pointed out by Thom, in Fed "A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or throw to a base and which is used in an attempt to deceive a runner." 2-28-5

Wouldn't this be a better place to begin analyzing this FED situation? I can see a case here for Carl's position.

Garth

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by GarthB
Hayes:

I believe the original quiz was stated thus:

"FED rules: F1 steps to occupied third, (1) does not make any arm motion, wheels, (2) remains on the rubber, and picks off R1."

The original scenario was (assuming my cut-and-paste works correctly), "R1, R3. The pitcher, having come to a discernible and complete pause in the set position, lifts his non-pivot foot and steps directly toward third. He does not feint a throw there. He immediately wheels and, while remaining on the rubber, throws to first and picks off R1. "

I took Carl at his word that there was no feint. So, his answer is correct. IF there's no feint, it must be a balk (FED).

[GarthB]

Hayes:

I did read the entire thread, however I got the impression that perhaps you did not.

I'm sorry if something was read into my message that was not intended. I do not moderate any forum, I was merely stating a thought that I now realize was based on a mistaken belief. My apologies if you feel offended in any way or mistakenly interpreted any negative "tone."

My point is that in FED, it appears that a feint requires an arm motion. I mistakenly thought you were disagreeing with that and using the OBR to substantiate your opinion.

Sorry again.

Garth

[Edited by GarthB on Dec 15th, 2000 at 02:58 PM]

[Carl Childress]

Mr. Hayes:

The "widening" of the thread was an explanation of why I was interested in the issue from an OBR point of view, nothing more.

FED language is perfectly clear. If the pitcher steps toward occupied third but does not feint a throw to occupied third, that is a balk.

Do you agree?

A feint in FED rules includes an arm motion.

Do you agree?

[Carl Childress]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hayes Davis
[B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress
Mr. Childress,
As far as the "FED feint requires arm motion" I am still in the UNDECIDED column. I've yet to see concrete evidence from anyone that this is absolutely required. Guess I'm just not "scolarly" enough to delve into the myriad of reference materials that I possess and therefore am relegated to waiting with keen anticipation for the moment someone CAN produce a finalized interpretation. However, I DO enjoy the posts presented regarding the FED "shoulder balk" not having arm movement. Perhaps the turning of the upper body without moving the arms is an exception to the rule.

You should be happy you're not "scolarly." Isn't that something like scoliosis?