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

a. (2) This is legal.

b. Balk because of staying on the rubber. No.

Therefore: It's a balk because the pitcher did not feint a throw to third.

At issue are <b>two vague OBR situations</b>:

First: The OBR says the pitcher must step before a throw. It does not say he must step before a feint. I've asked PBUC if Mike Winters (MLU) is right: He said: "Treat as in FED."

Second: The OBR offers some "umpires" refuge with a statement at 8.05(c) CMT 2, where it "possibly" speaks of turning and throwing from the rubber. Evans, J/R, and Winters all say it's a balk if the pitcher does not leave the rubber during the 3-1 play. I've asked PBUC if they are right.

The FED pitcher may stay on the rubber. But he must couple a step to an occupied base with arm motion, whether it's a feint or a throw. (FED 6-2-4b)

Confusing issue. Fed rulebook does not define "feint" nor does OBR. Fed casebook 6.2.4d refers to a pitcher that "feints toward third with a movement of the shoulder". Therefore, they acknowledge a feint does not have to include arm movement (fake throw). Rulebook states in 6.2.4b "failing to step with the non-pivot foot ....when throwing or feinting there...". It does not state "feinting a throw there".

I felt purpose and intent of rule was to assure "step to base with non-pivot foot" BEFORE throw or feint. I did not see intent to necessarily include arm movement.

I have seen many occassions where, with runner on 2nd, F1 will continue with his non-pivot foot toward 2nd yet make no arm motion whatsoever. Your interpretation that there must be arm movement to be a feint would cause this motion to 2nd to be a balk, would it not? I have never balked nor seen this action to 2nd balked because of lack of a fake throw. Would you balk this action because of lack of arm movement?

Does JEA, J/R, or anything else state that there must be arm motion to be a feint? I would think that any body movement in direction of base, runner, etc. could be interpreted as a feint. What supports interpretation that there must be arm movement to be a feint? Please advise.

Tim, I don't think I would say impossible, just difficult.

Point I am making, is that Carl's final paragraph says there must be arm movement. If that is the case and is consistently applied, the scenerio of movement to 2nd would also be a balk. Have we been missing it for all these years? Perhaps I misunderstood something in Carl's orignal post here.

Time for my 2 cents...IMHO, I belive that a feint does not necessarily require a throwing motion, but it does require a step toward a base. In Carl's set-up, R1 is retired even though F1's pivot foot was still in contact with the rubber. NO balk, R3 and an out. Now the "what if": If F1 fakes to first, he'd better have separation from the rubber.

Should the pitcher be required to make a throwing motion to feint to a base? I think not. And as far as remaining on the rubber for the throw to first, should F1 be required to "become an infielder", thus providing potential for a bigger base award if the throw goes out of play? OR must F1 disengage the rubber before making the turn towards first?

Now i'm beginning to confuse myself!

As always, I am amazed at the response to rules that umpires don't like, didn't know, or don't understand.

Gentlemen: The word "feint" is not defined in the FED book, nor (directly) in the NCAA, nor (directly) in the OBR. When that is the case, rules committees intend for the reader to take the word at its face value; that is, there is no specific "baseball" definition, as for example exists with the word "balk."

Balk: "To stop short and refuse to go on." If a pitcher does that, he has "balked," but he may not have "balked."

Feint: a deceptive action designed to draw one's attention away from a real purpose: Pretend to throw to one base and actually throw to another.

When a batter feints a bunt, what is the action?
When a fielder feints a tag, what is the action?
When a pitcher feints a throw, what is the action?

This is, in fact, a simple no-brainer. Every person ever connected for longer than a week with baseball knows what a "feint" looks like.

The NCAA book even "defines" a feint in an oblique manner by saying: "...any feinting motion (without completing the throw)...." (9-3a)

I use the NCAA book for even further evidence of what constitutes a "feint." In a college game the rule specifically allows the pitcher to step toward occupied third and he "need not feint a throw." (9-3b-3) [They are the only book that allows that.]

Finally: the OBR book itself also "defines" a feint as something that simulates a throw: "The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and <b>fails to complete the throw</b>." [my emphasis] (8.05b)

Please explain how the committee expects a pitcher to fail to complete a throw if it didn't postulate that the feint includes a <b>faked throw</b>?

So, we know from experience, common sense, the general understanding of "feint" current among English-speaking people, and at least two baseball committees that a "feint" includes arm motion.

The FED book says: If you feint or throw, you must take a step: "failing to step with the non-pivot foot directly toward a base ... when throwing or feinting there...." (6-2-4b)

The OBR books says: If you throw, you must step. It mentions feints, but it does not include a step in connection with the feint. (8.05b and c)

That was the point of my question. It is also the point of my request to the PBUC.

To conclude: The issue I bring up has been debated for at least 30 years that I know of. (1) One side says the OBR pitcher "must step even when he feints"; (2) the other says, "'taint necessary: read the book." Mike Winters, an MLB, is on side 1: He says the OBR pitcher must step -- just like the FED pitcher. We'll soon know what the PBUC thinks about the issue.

One thing is clear: If a FED pitcher steps toward a base and does not feint a throw: "Time: That's a balk!"

Hold on there Pappa C, let me get this straight. In your last line you said, if a fed pitcher steps toward a base and does not feint a throw you have a balk. Just being a 6 year rookie I have to disagree strongly. Play, runner on second, pitcher comes set raises non-pivot foot across the back of the rubber and steps toward second, disengages the rubber and breaks his hand and makes no throw or feint. Happens all the time and if there is any deceiving (key word) to the runner you could never sell that call to a good coach. It sounds to me like everyone forgets that the purpose of the balk is to prevent deliberate deceiving of the base runner by the pitcher. We all need to stop reading into the rules so much that it makes us crazy thinking we are missing something, every player in the dugout is telling the runners on first and third to watch for the 3-1 play so there can't be deception.

Hey duckump, I think you too may have forgotten a couple of things:

1. <b>Everything</b> a pitcher does in connection with picking off a runner is deliberately deceptive. A move that doesn't deceive the runner is condemned to failure, so why use it?

2. Not everything a pitcher does is both deliberately deceptive AND illegal, and THAT is the real issue.

I know the underlying intent of the balk rule, as stated in the OBR, but the fact is that there are only so many things that are considered BOTH deceptive AND illegal. In OBR there are precisely 14 illegal acts (balks) which don't require the umpire to make any judgement about deception whatsoever. The ONLY time the umpire should take the pitcher's intent into account is when the umpire isn't sure whether he's seen one of those 14 illegal acts that constitute a balk. THEN and ONLY THEN do the rules allow the umpire to consider the pitcher's intent before deciding to call a balk.

I can assure you, there are several possibilities for ILLEGAL acts constituting a balk under the rules within the 3-1 play, whether or not the runner is deceived by those acts! Surely you aren't suggesting umpires ignore deliberate rule infractions simply because the runners weren't deceived by them? Pish tosh, duckump. Pish tosh, I say! (grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Is it possible to balk to home with a turn to 2nd?
 

I saw this called in one of my son's games this past fall.

R2, LH pitcher turns almost all the way around to 2nd (his shoulders were almost square to the bag) during his motion, then uncoils and delivers the pitch to home. The PU working a 1 man system called a balk. I didn't see anything wrong with the move personally.

Re: Is it possible to balk to home with a turn to 2nd?
 

Sam,

As described, NOT a balk whether performed by LHP or RHP. I had a RH pitcher who would do this religiously with a runner on 2nd only. He never interrupted his motion by the action, but damn it looked ugly! It still wasn't a balk. Even if his not pivot foot crosses the plane at the back of the rubber, he is STILL entitled to pitch to the batter without alteration or interruption.

Cheers,

Warren Willson

How soon they forget!
 

Gentlemen:

The move you describes is the Luis Tiant move. It was all the rage among amateur pitchers during the 70s. and early 80s.

Luis had two balk moves:

(1) Herky, jerky, move to the stop. It was hardly one "continuous" motion. A National League umpire called a balk in the 1976 World Series. (Luis won 2/3rds of the games Boston won.) After that, <b>nobody</b> ever balked Luis again for that move. Did the Commish say something?

(2) Swivel "to second" and then deliver. That <b>would</b> be a balk IF he ever used that exact move and continued to second. Reason: He always used that and then pitched, so it became a part of his "natural" motion. In fact, it was many years before runners at second steeled themselves to hold their ground when Big Lou "turned" to their base. Note: This would NOT be a balk to second; it would be a balk because he began his pitching motion and didn't complete the pitch.

When Luis did it, it was intimnidating.
Nowadays, runners simply say, "Ho, hum."

re.warren
 

No I did not forget anything just trying to make my own point of view. Now tell the rest of us yanks what is pish tosh

Carl and Warren:
 

Warren and Carl, you are both experienced and erudite. Your comments are are thoughtful and rational.

Carl, I appreciate your providing the specifically published points in those references. I had not seen those, to my recollection. I don't know if I could sell a balk call on that issue in Fed ball here, and probably not in (usually OBR) summer ball. Let me play Devil's advocate for a moment.

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!!!)

For practical application in my games, I would probably not call a balk due to the absence of completion of a simulated throw. ALso, without specific language in the Fed book, how can one rule that way? I've seen nothing in case books or other places that addresses this specific circumstance. Further, your reference to OBR 8.05(b) is not on point because it only addresses a feint to first FROM THE RUBBER without completing a throw. It is, IMHO, not relevant to the issue involving bases to which a pitcher may feint a throw.

Lastly, again IMHO, NCAA rules are almost as strange as Fed. Really, a rule about erasing lines of the batters box???

Re: Carl and Warren:
 

1. Thanks for the compliment.

2. I don't have time to continue to discuss what seems so obvious to serious students of the game. In brief:

8.05(b) and (c) are a tandem, sir. You can't have the one without the other. Each explains <b>part</b> of the issue at hand. 8.05(b) explains that a feint <b>includes a throwing motion</b>. 8.05(c) expalins that a pitcher must step toward a base before <b>throwing</b>. The FED book says before <b>throwing</b> or <b>feinting</b>.

Can anything be clearer than that? The citations are not only <b>directly on point</b>, they are dispositive.

3. Finally: Until this coming season an NCAA batter completely within the <b>lines</b> of his batter's box did not have to avoid a pitch to be HBP and awarded first. The catcher even now must crouch with both feet inside the <b>lines</b> of the catcher's box. That seems ample reason to forbid players to erase the <b>lines</b>.

Wouldn't you agree on second glance that NCAA 3-6i is, indeed, a perfectly rational rule?

OTOH: Check out OBR 3.06 if you want to become acquainted with a truly bizarre rule, one that is <b>never</b> enforced.

"Pish tosh"
 

Hmmmm... did it again, didn't I? Slipped in another expression you guys don't normally use. This time, however, it is NOT exclusively Australian slang .. (grin)

<b>pish</b> <i>int.</i> expr. contempt, impatience or disgust [imit]

<b>tosh</b> <i>n.</i> (<i>sl.</i>) rubbish, nonsense. [19th c. of unkn. orig.]

Both definitions courtesy of my trusty <i>Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary</i> 7th Ed.

The loose translation in context is "stuff and nonsense", but don't forget the contemptuous sound of "pish" accompanying! (BIG grin)

Cheers,

Warren Willson

Re: Carl and Warren:
 

Hmmm....

<b>erudite</b> (-roo-) <i>a.</i> (Of person or writings) remarkably learned; [<i>Australian Oxford Concise Dictionary</i>, 7th Ed.]

.... yes. I <i>like</i> that! Thank you for the compliment. (grin)

Warren Willson

Re: Carl and Warren:
 

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.)

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.

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.

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.")

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:

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

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

Cheers,

Warren Willson

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

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

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.

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

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).

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]

Mr. Hayes:

The "widening" of the thread was an explanation of why I was interested in the issue from <b>an OBR point of view</b>, 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?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hayes Davis
[B]You should be happy you're not "scolarly." Isn't that something like scoliosis?

Wow. I thought this was a forum for baseball. It reads like a personal attack/response forum. I'll stop back after the holidays when everyone is in a better mood. And that's just MY opinion. Merry Christmas, everyone!

Happy Hanukah to you, too.

Gosh, John: Can't a girl have a little fun? (Oh, this post will still be here after the holidays.)

You want to read attacks, go back to McGriff's. <b>Those</b> are attacks.

FYI, McGriff's gas been quieter than this board lately. Oh, and Carl, did you get my e-mail?

In checking something else I came across the following in NAPBL 6.4n and thought it would be of interest in this not so old thread:
"with runners on first and third, if a pitcher fakes a throw to third base and then throws the ball to first base, arm motion is not required by the pitcher in his fake to third"

I guess that, too, pretty well identifies that you can fake a throw (feint) without arm motion. I have still yet to see anything identified (other than opinion) that requires arm motion under ANY set of rules.

One last time and never again: Read FED 2-28-5 and then tell me (hell, tell everyone) how <b>anyone</b> can "simulate the start of a pitch or a throw" <b>without moving his arm</b>.

Oh, I get it: He's going to throw with his foot as he steps toward third. Aw, well, pardon me; gosh, I just hadn't seen that move yet in South Texas. I guess it's all the rage in Tarrent County.

BTW: Just so you don't continue to think I'm as dumb as you insinuate that I am: Read carefully 8.05c CMT 2. Note that nowhere in that passage does it speak of a "fake throw" or a "feint to throw." The book <b>specifically</b> mentions "step." And that, dear reader, is why the NAPBL carefully points out that during that LEGAL step toward third, arm motion (a feint throw) is <b>not</b> required.

Get it -- finally?

Note there are two points:

FED requires arm motion. Read 6.2.4c.
OBR doesn't. Read 8.05c CMT 2.

No opinion there, Bubba.

Poor Hayes:

You're at it again. Gosh, let's see:

1. The first play you cite has nothing to do with the issue. It defines what a "step toward" is and has nothing to do with feinting. But it looks good on your resumé.

2. Now I want to you stand as if on the rubber in the set position. Step toward third and at the same time fake with your shoulder. If your arm doesn't move, well, then, I agree you're right. (And if you don't separate your hands during that fake, it's a balk anyway. Right?)

Golly, gee: You just can't stay away when you <b>think</b> you have something to argue with me about. It's really amusing. But I'm not the only one who appreciates the humor of it.

BTW: You didn't start back to smoking, did you? Those things will kill you.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

1. The first play you cite has nothing to do with the issue. It defines what a "step toward" is and has nothing to do with feinting. But it looks good on your resumé.

2. Now I want to you stand as if on the rubber in the set position. Step toward third and at the same time fake with your shoulder. If your arm doesn't move, well, then, I agree you're right. (And if you don't separate your hands during that fake, it's a balk anyway. Right?)



Your point #2 is excellent and you have won me to your side as I cannot imagine a pitcher legally stepping to a base without his arm moving toward that base in the process (arm movement). It is obvious his arm has to make distance and direction to where he is legally stepping.

Furthermore, I suspect that interpretation will also suffice in answering my previous question regarding F1 stepping legally toward 2nd to drive back R2 yet making no OBVIOUS arm movement to throw. I bring this up because without this interpretation, it would mean your requirement of "arm movement" would also mean that act would be a balk. I would find it difficult to believe that you have never seen that move occur in your years of calling. I would also think you never balked it only because if you did, you would then be in class of your own. Therefore, since the arm MUST move in legally stepping toward a base, both moves must legal.

Of course it also means that the situation originally posed to start this thread would be impossible to happen.

Carl, you stated in a previous thread that I insinuated that you were dumb. I don't believe I have said anything that insinuated that nor that any others took comments in that understanding. If I have offended you, I am sorry. Please remember I am a member of those who are aware they may be fallible. I also think sometimes you may be searching for anything that can add another page to the BRD.

That WAS meant as a cut since you, too, like to throw darts WHEN THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY. I DO apologize immediately for the cut which is probably the first negative thing I have said regarding you. It was said only to let you know that you, and others, are indeed smart enough to know one from the other. All are also smart enough to know whether such statements earn or lose respect. I am smart enough, from here on out, to keep my negative comments to myself. Please understand that doesn't mean I may have legitimate, opposing thoughts than yours. I AM here, as others, to increase my knowledge of the game I love so much and to be able to share my thoughts without fear of persecution from the scolarly (or is it scholarly?). I would hate to mispell a word or have a typo.

With Continued Respect,

Steve Freix

Re: Senility is Painless (Sung to the tune of
 

Hayes:

I'm shocked you would stoop to name calling ("senile" and "impotent," by association). <b>I made no remarks about you personally.</b> (I did say in a light-hearted vein that you enjoyed disagreeing with me, which to any objective observer is an obvious truth based on your posting history.)

My comments about your smoking were intended as a reminder from a three-time cancer victim (three different brands) that you've already had health problems.

You are out of line, Mr. Davis. Way out of line. I don't pay any attention to a poster after he has viciously attacked me for no reason.

Being relatively new to the forums I am continuing to learn both about the forums and about baseball.

It seems there is more to talk about regarding forum etiquette than baseball. Perhaps someone should right a book on Forum Rules Differences (we could call it the FRD !!).

I agree with much said by both Carl and Hayes.
Carl certainly knows his rules, but is not infallible (as some very close to him may think). Hayes is certainly correct in that when someione tends to bring out a good argument vs. Carl that Carl can react with his little inuendos that tend more to personally attack his adversary than try to prove a point.

To summarize my feelings of this thread:

I think Carl is trying to sell an issue as a Fed interpretation that is not directly addressed by the Fed (in a word for word manner, thereby making it Carl's OPINION), that his interpretation is in direct contradiction with NCAA and OBR interpretations, and that possibily could provide him something to be added to a book called the BRD. I bring this up ONLY as a POSSIBLE outlying motive in this OPINION of interpretation which is contradictory to the other rules.

Reality being that the purpose of Fed rule 6.2.4b is to require pitcher TO STEP to the base he is throwing or feinting to. To read anything into it beyond that is either witch hunting or looking for a new page for the BRD. That position is supported by Fed casebook 6.2.4d which refers to a feint made with the shoulder (thereby acknowledging a feint in the eyes of the Fed does not have to include arm movement). Now from there, you can read into it whatever you want regarding what else must move because the shoulder did. Furthermore, Carl's Fed interpretation is not applied by umpires under any rules at any level for a pitcher merely stepping to 2nd in attempt to drive back R2. It is difficult to accept Carl's interpretation when, in reality, it is only applied at one base!

Carl, accepting your fine points on fact that an arm MUST move if a pitcher legally steps, then I can agree with you. That point denied, I cannot accept your interpretation. That only means we disagree. That doesn't mean I am not a learned umpire, as you like to imply because I disagree with you. It does not mean I am not a serious umpire, as you stated in a previous thread since I disagreed with you. It just means we disagree. You may be right, or I may be right. However, until such time as the Fed specifically addresses the issue, I prefer to accept my interpretation over yours. Get them to accept yours and I will also do so (reluctantly).

Now that I am bold enough to disagree with you, you may wish to start thinking up new cuts to throw upon me. Please remember, though, the difference between a respected wit which gains respect and obvious arrogance which loses respect can sometimes be a fine line.


BTW, Merry Christmas





[Edited by Bfair on Dec 25th, 2000 at 01:49 PM]

A 3rd Party perspective ...
 

In an attempt to restore this discussion to a less personal and more topical level, I would like to try and precis Carl's position as it relates to your paragraph quoted above. This is NOT in any sense a personal defense of Carl, or an attack on you, Hayes. As a 3rd party, and one who does NOT call FED or even possess a current FED rule book or case book, I think I can be considered impartial in this thread. Ok?

The Play you cited, 6.2.4d, certainly DOES say that there <i><b>can</b></i> be a shoulder feint with NO accompanying arm movement. The actual circumstances for that play, however, are that there was also <u>NO accompanying step</u> toward the base i.e. the shoulder feint was the ONLY movement toward 3rd base in the cited play. That is certainly possible although illegal, as the play defines.

OTOH, Carl's point was that if the pitcher first STEPS toward the base, as one would apparently be legally required to do under the FED provision, and THEN also attempts to "shoulder feint" toward that base, one of two other things must also happen:

(a) he DOES NOT separate his hands, which I believe Carl's post implies would be a balk anyway under FED rules, OR

(b) he DOES legally separate his hands, which action when accompanied by any shoulder movement CANNOT be physically achieved without also requiring at least minimal arm movement of some description <i>except</i> perhaps under the wierdest of circumstances.

To achieve a shoulder feint which is also accompanied by the required hand separation but with no perceptable arm movement, the hands would need to separate in the vertical plane but the wrists remain fixed together and pivot. To do anything else means that the arms MUST move perceptably.

If I am correct in my assessment, and option (b) is the scenario of which Carl speaks, then I believe Carl HAS made his point that any feint to a base which is preceded by a legal step AND the required separation of the hands MUST also include some arm movement. With that "wierdest of circumstances" mentioned as the only possible exception, I would certainly be inclined to discount any alternative view as wholly unrealistic.

Now please remember, Hayes, that I claim NO specific knowledge of, or general expertise in, the subject rules of the NFHS. All I have done here is to try to impartially follow the various logical arguments of this thread and come to some sort of conclusion based on those arguments. You may well STILL disagree with my conclusion but I trust you will accept that it has at least been arrived at impartially, and in a spirit of reconciliation of the two obviously disparate views.

My best wishes to you and yours for Christmas and the coming New Year.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 25th, 2000 at 04:38 PM]

What's the point?
 

In reading through this thread I think that we need to realize that their IS a difference in the FED and OBR rules regarding the feint to 3B.

I believe someone called it semantics; however, if we are calling FED rules, then we need to make the right call.

If F1 makes a feint to 3B he must move his shoulder/arm and he must separate his hands. If he does not it's a balk.

That's what we have to call. I know that many times I get to reading the thread and I get lost in what is the reason for discussion of the topic.

There are people reading the threads that may be misled by the "bologna" that had been thrown around above.

Now I hope I got it right. If not, I'm sure that I will be corrected.

Thanks
David

Re: Re: A 3rd Party perspective ...
 

Davis is not content to bring his name calling to this board. (I challenge him to find any message on this board where I applied a name to him. On the other hand, he's called me senile and impotent.)

That's not enough. Now he stoops to out-and-out falsehood! He quotes me above as saying "feint means separating hands, drawing arm back in cocking motion, making arm motion in direction of base with ball in hand BUT not releasing the ball." He knows that most people will not check back into the thread to see if he is telling the truth.

He is not.

I made <b>three</b> comments about "feint" as it applies to FED rules: (1) "But he [F1] must couple a step to an occupied base with arm motion, whether it's a feint or a throw." (2) "A feint in FED includes an arm motion." (3) How can you 'simulate a pitch or a throw' without arm motion?"

You cannot. Davis claims I'm applying my opinion to one base only, where it should be applicable to all. Well, he clearly didn't mean first: You can't feint (with or without arm motion) to first. That leaves third (where the original question lay) and second.

Someone argued the pitcher steps to second without arm motion. In 50 years of watching baseball, I never saw a pitcher turn toward second without lifting his arms in some semblance of a pick-off move. Otherwise, the turn means nothing to the runner.

Davis argues that I have backtracked from my original statement. <b>Not for an instant!</b> Under FED rules, a feint is "a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base." (2-28-5) I repeat what I have said all along: <B>Can one <i>simulate a throw</i> to a base without arm motion</B>? That's a question Davis has not answered.

Finally, Davis asserted that I've ignored the difference "all these years" in the BRD. Section 332 in the edition he has covered the FED definition. It never became important until the PBUC in December 2000 specifically said that an OBR pitcher <b>must step before a legal feint</b> and that a legal feint <b>TO THIRD</b> does not include arm motion.

I would have allowed the Admin's word to be sufficient, were it not for Davis and his deliberate misquoting of my statements. I will not permit that to go unremarked.

Surely everyone who checks the thread will now know the type of adversary he is and treat him accordingly. I certainly shall.

Yet another line in the sand and another call to arms. It’s really a good thing this is the World Wide Web. Else wise some folks would end up looking at all the players on the other side of the line. But alas with WWW there will always be fresh meat.

rex

Re: Re: Re: Re: A 3rd Party perspective ...
 

FED 6.2.4d does not refer to motion by a pitcher but by an infielder (a pitcher who has stepped off the rubber). Did you mean 6.2.4c?

I think it's bad business to quote 6.2.4c because it's the very point I'm making. Listen carefully to the points of the play:

1. Third is occupied.

2. The pitcher "then feints toward third with a movement of the shoulder...."

<b>That language does not say he feints a throw.</b>

He could simply twist (wig-wag) his shoulder, or drop it. That kind of movement has always been a balk at every level: Nothing new there. I'm not talking about shoulder feints but "faked throws."

3. <b>Now</b> comes the faked throw that I'm referring to.

4. "[F1] removes one hand from the ball and <b>makes an arm motion toward third but <i>does not step</i> toward third</b>." That is a balk.

5. Continuing with legal moves: "He might, while on the plate, step toward occupied third and <b>feint a throw</b> [my emphasis] there...."

6. One then wants to know what "feint a throw" means. That's at 2-28-5: "A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitch or a throw to a base."

What could be any clearer? What could be any easier?

Briefly:

(1) A shoulder or arm feint without a step is a balk. FED 6.2.4c makes that clear.

(2) The case book play speaks of <b>two separate illegal moves</b>. F1: (a) feints with "movement of the shoulder" <b>OR</b> "makes an arm motion" without a step.

(2) For years, umpires argued that an OBR pitcher did not have to step when he feinted a move to a base. The PBUC ruling clarified that: The pitcher must step, whether on a throw or a feint. That means FED and OBR are now the same.

That is the point I have been trying to make.

Thanks for the info
 

This thread actually has some good info if you can read through the mess.

Hayes you state your playing "devil's advocate" but it's very obvious from your last post that all you are playing is "trying to save face."

There is no pertinent information for the umpires.

The last post by Carl completely covers all of the points discussed.

I know I don't care about your personal mail or your personal support group "Hayes Davis Anon".

I just want the info that makes me a better umpire and a better instructor.

Now give up the personal facade and stick to the facts.

There are new umpires that we send to these boards and they need good and precise information.

The horse is dead!

Thanks
David

Carl, your last post was excellent and very persuasive in explaining your point of view. You might even be winning me over. To your last post I would ask the following:

1) Does not Fed Casebook 6.2.4d "acknowledge" fact that a feint may be accomplished with ONLY the movement of the shoulder? Please let's not read into it what other body parts you feel must move as result of shoulder. This is legit question.

2) If, indeed, a "faked throw" is required, are we now to balk F1 when he goes to 2nd and does not "fake a throw". Note that does not include arm motion associated with his turn to the base. And I HAVE seen F1's turn to 2nd legally without any obvious arm motion and without faking a throw. I am certain I am not alone in this category.

3) Does not the legal "step" to 3rd constitute part of the throwing motion? After all, F1 in taking such a step, COMMITS himself to the obligations imposed upon him at that base which is either to throw, or not to throw. This is no different than his COMMITMENT he has imposed upon himself when he steps to home with his pitch. I argue, is not his step part of his pitch? It certainly is defined as such from the windup although not necessarily from the stretch. Bottom line, the step, wherever it legally goes, CAN be the START of either the pitch or the throw, cannot it not? Certainly a step is not physically needed to make arm motion and throw (a ball can be thrown without stepping), but when the legal step occurs, is it not the start of action.

I think what we have here is perhaps trying to read deeper into the intent of Fed rule 6.2.4b which I see as being to require F1 to step where he intends to throw or feint (be it a pickoff or a pitch). This let's the offense know the intent of F1 and, by rule, commits him to where he stepped.

Points to consider: Other rule publications do not require a fake throw. A fake throw is not required (or at least enforced) under any set of rules when going to 2nd base. The fed acknowledges a feint can be made only with a shoulder (therefore a feint can be short of arm movement, merely a bluff, such as legally stepping to the base with the step being the start of his normal throwing motion).
These all support my belief, right or wrong, that arm movement (a fake throw or start of a fake throw) would not be required.

I think you are addressing an issue NOT SPECIFICALLY addressed in detail by the Fed and trying to sell your OPINION as fact. You are entitled to your opinion, as are others to theirs. But until the Fed specifically addresses it themselves or until you can provide a more persuasive reason, I choose to use my opinion as I feel it to be more consistent with other rules and more consistent to application of Fed rules at other bases. That seems far more LOGICAL to me. Do you see ANY MERIT in the arguments against your viewpoint? Better yet, do you perceive your viewpoint as opinion or fact? If fact, have you any further evidence beyond that already stated: have you contacted Fed interpreters? I know your connections and WILL accept your word on such issues. That's good enough for me. Carl, I may question your interpretations, but I won't question your word.

WHY do you feel the Fed would want the interpretation different from the other published rules? Certainly not safety. Perhaps fairness, but if that were case, if that was INTENDED, would they not address it specifically?

Please notice I have not stooped to degratory inuendos as IT WAS NOTICED that YOU DID NOT in your last post. All us hold much more respect FOR YOU and your obvious knowledge when you don't lower yourself to that level. Please take that as a compliment. It IS good to have legitimate discussions where each others thoughts on how the rules and interpreting the rules and publications can be considered. Despite the fact that you referred to me and specifically titled me a "rat" on a different board (for which, by the way, I failed to see an apology) I still hold you in high respect and hope to prove to you that I am here to talk baseball and related concerns, whether you agree or not.

[Edited by Bfair on Dec 28th, 2000 at 09:58 AM]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A 3rd Party perspective ...
 

Whatever position you played, it certainly wasn't catcher or pitcher. The issue of whether a pitcher <b>must step when he feints</b> is all important when you consider the timing of pickoff-attempt vis á vis pitch. You refer to it as a "loophole." If so, there is at least a loaded rifle sticking out to trick the wary runner.

<b>IF</b> the pitcher can feint a throw without a step, he can bluff the runner back to a base <b>without disengaging his pitching stance</b>. Then, while the runner falls back toward the base, the pitcher can deliver; and he has thus gained an advantage not intended by the rules.

Since the OBR "text" is very clear (step required for a throw, but not required for a feint: 8.05d), you and the umpires in your area have just been kicking that call all along. Now, you and your colleagues are no longer in that camp of umpires who simply make up the rules as they go along.

It's also apparent that until this thread arose, you had never heard of this oft-discussed controversy. BTW: In case you're interested as to what the purpose of the question was, re-read the final four paragraphs of my second post. It, too, will show that I have had a consistent goal and message from the beginning.

BTW2: I accept your three-fold thanks for getting this area of the book cleared up. You're quite welcome, I'm sure.

Is the 2000 and/or the 2001 OBR different than the 1999?

My 1999 OBR doesn't say the following qoute

Asper C.C.
"Since the OBR "text" is very clear (step required for a throw, but not required for a feint: 8.05d),"

8.05(d) pertains to throwing to an unoccupied base. My book says notta about a step not being required for a fient.

You two are really playing with my mind. If your gonna site rules please make em the right number.

rex

It's a typo. Raise your eyes one letter.

If you're keeping up with the thread, then....

C.C. wrote

"Raise your eyes one letter."

I can buy a typo but that’s quite cryptic. Well It ain’t E cause that’s an illegal pitch so I would guess you would mean C.

Sorry I don't get it. C says a pitcher doesn't have to make the throw after taking the step. I just don't see anything about not moving the hands/arms/shoulders.

I guess what I'm asking is. Are you saying it's not a balk if while in contact with the rubber a pitcher, in the set, can simply waive his throwing arm (with the ball in his hand) at a runner on third (or second) without taking the step and it's not a balk? Kinda like shoe-fly get back to base. Or that someone with an authoritative opinion is saying this?

If this is what you are saying please tell me again what is the rule number?

rex

Steve,

I think you're getting yourself confused here. I'm not Carl, but please allow me to try to step through it for you (no pun intended - grin):

1. OBR 8.05(c) says a step toward the base is required ahead of a throw. It does NOT say such a step is required ahead of a feint.

2. Some umpires have used point 1 above to suggest that the pitcher may therefore legally feint a throw to a base other than 1st without stepping to the base first. This is despite the wording of OBR 8.01 that <i>requires</i> one of a pitch, a step (and throw), or a legal disengagement of the rubber after assuming either of the two legal pitching positions. Anything else is a balk with runners on base.

3. FED cured this misconception by writing in a specific provision that required a step ahead of a feint.

4. OBR recently cured this misconception by an NAPBL/PBUC interpretation that said a step WAS required to precede a feint as well as a throw.

Carl was simply pointing out that FED and OBR now agree in their application on this principle; a feint to throw must be preceded by a legal step to the base.

This was part of the earlier argument that if a feint to throw also requires both a step to the base AND a positive separation of the hands, that it is clearly impossible to achieve all three (step, hand separation, and feint) without SOME arm movement also occurring.

Cheers.

[Edited by Warren Willson on Dec 29th, 2000 at 12:26 AM]

Thanx Mate,

You know if people would just speak plain old engish without showing how witty they are, us dumbies would pick it up alot faster.

again Thanx Mate

rex

You're welcome, and my apologies for addressing you as "Steve". For some reason I had in my mind that the question had come from Bfair.

Cheers

Warren

I sure am glad the new year is coming as this thread has lasted 40 days and nights. Seeing all the positives and negatives has been great and in reading them I know now I'm ready for the season to start as soon as posible. I do beleive that we can all just get along. Happy New Year y'all.

disappointment and dismay
 

I have learned a lot about baseball matters in perusing this thread. That is good. Not so good is what I percieve to be unnecessary and untoward taking of offense by a few posters.

So all of you learned umpires, for those of us who want to learn more, don't be so rabbit eared. Ignore the implications of commentary by other posters. Don't default to inferring insults.

No intent to impugn your experience or integrity as an umpire and rules guru, Carl, but shouldn't you, as an Editor of this Board, accept that some of us may disagree with you. Avoid seeing opposing opinions as personal attacks and do not engage in public displays of animosity. Just my 2 cents.

Re: disappointment and dismay
 

Gosh, Bubba, you're just another of those impotent and senile guys who....

You don't like being called that? Neither did I.

<b>I have not yet called anyone any names on this Board</b> except in obvious jest.

That is an urban legend on this Board fostered by two long-time enemies, both of whom have been reprimanded publicly here, and one of whom who has been reprimanded publicly on another Board as well.

As for disagreeing, try it and see what happens. As I have posted many times, I welcome disagreement. There's a thread on McGriff's about runner interference with a batted ball that's 31 posts long with only two stupid comments by an anonymous troll who styles himself "Fearless Leader." (Fearless? If so, why is he anonymous?)

Sharp disagreement; no consensus; no name calling except for the troll.

What I don't like are people who ask my <b>opinion</b> and then want to argue about it.

Bubba: "Carl, I didn't eject the batter because.... What do you think?"

Papa C: "Well, I think he should have been ejected because...."

Bubba: "Oh, yeah? Well, you're wrong. Yadda yadda, yah, etc."

Go back and reread the thread. Then come back and tell me who fired the first shots. Don't accept the unsupported assertions of those who would cause trouble.

Re: Re: disappointment and dismay
 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>

Carl, I took your advice as I frequently do, and reread the entire thread. What I have noticed is that it seemed to me things initiated with condescending inuendos and progressed from that point. Others may or may not agree with that if they re-read. Certainly, Hayes went far beyond what he should have. Little doubt he is aware of that and hopefully will improve for the future.

No, you haven't called anyone names on this board, but managed a pretty good job of it elsewhere. Certainly that was not in jest, was it??? A reputation can carry from field to field with an umpire, and........
I don't mind saying I felt it was uncalled for and I have yet to see an apology or even have one implied. I don't think I have ever been disrespectful toward you or shown that I am here to cause trouble vs. appropriately addressing issues of baseball. I don't know if you consider me one of adversaries mentioned. You've made me feel that way, despite fact that I agree with on most other issues. You've even indicated you won't respond to my posts. That's your choice.

I can understand when someone asks your opinion and continues to argue that it could upset you. However, they may be seeking further insight, trying to look at other factors (and bringing those forward for you to address). YOU SHOULD TAKE IT AS A COMPLIMENT, that a person(s) hold you in high enough esteem to care and ask for your opinion.
I would if anyone ever asked for mine (no one ever has all my life, don't know why). (grin) Don't expect others to be at your level. You know the work and efforts you've put in to achieve what you have. Some of the negatives accompany the notoriety.

Now to this thread, you started out implying that this interpretation is FACT. Perhaps I misunderstood that point. I think it is more your OPINION as I haven't necessarily seen it enforced as you profess or specifically addressed as a NEED for arm motion in order to be legal. In fact the other sets of rules specifically state arm motion is NOT required. That doesn't mean you are wrong. We could have been missing all these years, although you did not address that question when asked. Warren, a typical supporter of yours (great minds think alike) in his post of 12/28 pointed out how Fed appeared to have worded their rules to REQUIRE STEP to base thereby correcting shortfall of OBR writings. Is that not the purpose of and intent of Fed Rule 6.2.4b? You cared not to address that either when questioned. The movement of the step can START the commitment to pitch, why cannot it not START the commitment to throw or feint? You failed to address that issue when questioned.

In trying to prove your point, you fail to acknowledge ANY legitimacy in the points that are keeping those in doubt from accepting your interpretation. That does not help to prove your point. These questions are asked of you not to argue, but because you (at least in my eyes) are the respected, knowledgeable source. I don't know of opportunities I have to ASK J/R, JEA, Brinkman, or NAPBL about items I have questions about. I do have the opportunity to ask you to try to further my knowledge.

I like studying and trying to know the rules the best I can. Maybe I could be considered a younger Carl Childress? That may be a cut! Problem is, I don't know if it's a cut to me or to you! (grin) We have to walk before we run. Most here are beyond walking, at least jogging, and some may be running. We know Carl sprints when it comes to rules and we are trying to get there. Sometimes we want to know the why's and what for's. Don't take that as negative, and please don't be condescending because we don't know what you may. Most of all, be respectful to those who are respectful to you.

I have not yet called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest


WRONG<WRONG<WRONG!!!!!!!

What you think, as being cute is a pure inslute to some and I Sir am a some. I have let it go up until you have the nerve to make that comment. It’s like saying look everybody I’m so innocent. Only those that have been belittled will remember their turn in the Carl Childress barrel. You count on the fact that those reading don’t recall each and every situation.

Being gentlemen I’ve always let it pass, as I would rather not lower myself to your level. BUT Sir and I use that term with all due respect in my opinion you should retract that statement.

Rexie baby (AKA Rex the wonder dog) (AKA the person calling himself Rex {if that’s his real name})

I'm sorry, but I cannot apolgize for my statement because it is true. I have NEVER called anyone any names on this Board except in obvious jest.

However, it seems that my modifier was misplaced. I should have said: "in what I thought was obviously in jest."

I can and do apolgize if you misunderstood my sense of humor. I did not then, nor do I now consider that there is a problem between us, and I will try to remember your sensitivity to my jesting in the future.

Carl wrote

I will try to remember your sensitivity to my jesting in the future.

Not to worry about any sensitivity on my part. I’m about as sensitive as an anvil.

When it comes to something funny I’ll be the first one to start laughing. But first it would have to contain at least a little humor.

The purpose of my last post was not to solicit any type of apology or to infer the WE had a problem. I only wished to draw to your attention the fact that you claim not to have called anyone a name. As you can see you have. I’ve watched as you have racked over, badgered, and intimidated posters to the point many, MANY no longer show their faces.

You now claim a simple misunderstanding. Well I don’t buy it, BUT I’ll except it. I was raised to believe a mans word was his bond. I don’t intend to be the humor sheriff but with any contract there is always someone that will insure an agreement is fulfilled.

rex

Rex wrote:

"I only wished to draw to your attention the fact that you claim not to have called anyone a name. As you can see you have."

Actually, Carl wrote that he hadn't called anyone a name at this board except in obvious jest. That's different. He has since corrected that to, basically, in what he thought was in obvious jest. Apparently he and you do not agree on what is in jest.

I take his apology as a sincere note that he will try to remember that what you and he consider in jest is different. You have the right to monitor that apology. However, if he choses to refer to me, in jest, as a dimwitted New York republican, or to Warren as an illeterate outback hill billy, please allow us the right to judge the level of jest.

A problem with the internet is that, unlike sitting around the bar, we cannot see each other's faces, expressions, body language, or hear tone of voice or inflections.

Another is that our perceptions are difficult to, well, perceive. I have seen numerous umpires chased off boards as well, and Carl had nothing to do with it. I am one of about many, many umpires who will no longer post at McGriff's due to the name calling.

If I wrote in support of Carl at that board, at least ten posters would attack me. If I wrote in support of his holiness at that board, at least ten differenct posters would attack me.

We are trying desparately to have somthing different here. The management at offcialforum want something different here. We are hoping that the posters who come here also want someting different here.

I would ask all of us here, as a New Year's resolution, to leave what we find on other boards right where we find it. Bring no baggage to this board. We all have sinned and we all have the opportunity to get it right this time.

Auld Lang Syne.

GarthB

I agree name calling on this and all boards is best left elsewhere. I, however, am personally offended by being called an inappropriate name and being titled as such by Carl Childress on this or any other board. We all know these boards have common members and your reputation goes with you---whether that is what and how you post or whether it is what you are called.

I am more greatly offended the the hypocrisy shown by Carl when he states he hasn't done it ON THIS BOARD but he has elsewhere. He maintains his discipline much better on this board than others by sticking with demeaning inuendos that are obviously not all said in jest (as he would like to disguise his efforts). The idea that I killed someone in Texas but I am not bad because I am now in Oklahoma where I am only wounding people carries little weight with most and IS HYPOCRITICAL. Whether you and I agree or disagree on this is irrelevant as his posts are still there for anyone to see and make their own determinations.

To stand up for Carl I must add that no one on the boards is attacked to the extent he is, no one! Despite his occasional inuendos and even his direct insults to me, I will still add that many of the insults he endures are totally unprovoked and inappropriate. I don't really know which boards he is or isn't an official moderator for, but in being such for any single board, he should then show the self-discipline expected of that position when posting on ALL boards. He knows those shots are coming because of the notoriety he as earned, accepts, and expects from others.

I am sorry Garth, my postings concerning Carl have always been with respect for both his knowledge and person (excepting one in this thread where I offered immediate apology). I CHALLENGE you or anyone to highlight any post by me on any board stating or implying otherwise. He still holds my respect for his knowledge, but he has EARNED THE LOSS of the respect I once held for him as a person.

I don't like seeing Hayes lowering himself to the level he did and I emailed him stating such, but that doesn't mean that I may not agree with Hayes' statement that Carl tends to resort to personal attack (inuendo or statements) as he develops greater difficulty supporting his point of view.

I don't consider that to be a cut, merely an agreement with Hayes' statement based upon Carl's posts. All may also make their own determinations regarding that point. If all would stick to the real issues and stay away from personal cuts irrelevant to the issue, all boards would be what they were meant to be.

(added) Perhaps Carl, as a respected source and official moderator, could indicate in his posts what is supported and accepted fact vs. opinion. This might openly aid the other posting members. Just a serious idea to help avoid future confrontations or misunderstanding for all.

[Edited by Bfair on Dec 31st, 2000 at 06:29 PM]

Steve:

I do not find truthful statements to be hypocritical, so I can't agree with your premise.

Also, in logic classes I learned to disregard arguments of the extreme. To compare different behavior at different boards with being a murderer in one state and not other is an argument of the extreme and does not contribute to a resolution.

My point was that we CAN have a different board here. Many, many posters behave differently at different boards. One only needs to visit R.S.O, URC, Eteamz, McGriff's and Officialforum. The same names pop up time after time. how they post on unmoderated boards and how many pseudonyms they use when they are not required to register differs from board to board.

We CAN choose to have a different board here. The managment of Eumpire are managing it differently and have have different expectations. They continue to delete posts that contain personal attacks.

I personally do not care what happens on other boards. (Here is a comparison that is not of the extreme) Your children may misbehave at your home, but they will not be allowed to do so at my home. The same can apply to this board.

He's another comparison that is not of the extreme. I know that a certain amount of rowdy behavior will be tolerated at my corner pub. I know even more rowdy behavior will be tolerated at some east side pubs. I also know that I wam expected to have impeccable behavior when I vist the The Fairmont. Am I a hypocrite because I behave differently in different establishments that have different expecations?

No.

Here, we are all guests of Eumpire. We should be expected to behave, while we are here, as they request. If we cannot meet their expectations, then we should leave.

If you want the same kind of expectation to carry through on other boards, you should contact their managament. It all starts there.


Happy New Year,
Garth

First, as you addressed the order you demand at eUmpire I should not fail to compliment you and others involved with eUmpire for their efforts and success. It is apparent and appreciated.

************************************************** *********
[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

I do not find truthful statements to be hypocritical, so I can't agree with your premise.....

Also, in logic classes I learned to disregard arguments of the extreme. To compare different behavior at different boards with being a murderer in one state and not other is an argument of the extreme and does not contribute to a resolution.....

Here's another comparison that is not of the extreme. I know that a certain amount of rowdy behavior will be tolerated at my corner pub. I know even more rowdy behavior will be tolerated at some east side pubs. I also know that I wam expected to have impeccable behavior when I vist the The Fairmont. Am I a hypocrite because I behave differently in different establishments that have different expecations?

No.
___________________________

Garth, I may be wrong in using an exaggerated example. Sometimes that method is used to better highlight what exactly is occurring. It makes it easier for others to visualize. That is what was attempted. I will try to use your examples instead:

I visit the east side pub and I insult John Doe and announce to all present what a "rat" he is. (I'll deem that name calling.) That behavior is not preferred or appreciated there, but is accepted.

Next night I visit Fairmont. Here I see John Doe and others, many of whom were at east side pub last night. In discussion with John Doe and others, I insult John Smith (who may have been at pub last night). John Smith calls me a name I don't like and I take objection as Fairmont does not allow name calling. Furthermore, I CLAIM MY INNOCENCE regarding name calling as I certainly have not called anyone a name while IN HERE.
_______________

Garth, the final sentence is true, and I haven't broken the name calling rule (unless of course, John Smith is right). Unfortunately, the actions of what I am doing, participating in name calling at east side and announcing my innocence against name calling at Fairmont IS HYPOCRITICAL----and, yes Garth, that also makes the truthful sentence hypocritical. It's not the sentence, IT IS THE ACTION---and it has little to do with WHERE it occurs, merely that it does occur.

And yes, that does mean that Carl has been hypocritical when he assumes that action on EUmpire. You may not think so, but I do, and others may make their own decisions.



************************************************** **********

[QUOTE]Originally posted by GarthB

I personally do not care what happens on other boards.
_________________________

I will add is that if YOU were insulted amongst a group of people whom you visited with at east side and heard your perpetrator at Fairmont claiming such innocence in your presence regarding a similar issue, you just might care. Maybe not. But you weren't and you shouldn't. But I was, and I do.

Just my opinion

[Edited by Bfair on Dec 31st, 2000 at 09:25 PM]

Steve:

Oh, but I was insulted at other boards, and by some who occasionally visit this board.

Perhaps no one but Carl or Jim Porter have been subject to the intense harassment I received at a certain board. And primarily because of who I considered a friend. But I've always been a proactive sort, so rather than complain about my treatment there, I left.

Then I found this board, and have enjoyed the difference in attitude, even among those who once chased me away from a board. I can accept the change in their behavior, even if it is only displayed at this board, because this is where I deal with them. So again, I care not what anyone does at another board. I care not what you or anyone else may do in someone else's living room. I care what you do in mine.

I do not find that hypocritical. Apparently our undestanding of the word is different, c'est la vie. I can deal with that.

I just hope that people can appreciated that boards are different. Maybe that's sticking in my mind because of an article I just finished one "The Internet and the Umpire."

I contend that the managament, or lack thereof, has the heaviest influence on a boards "personality". The same poster can, (and often do) make the majority of posts of each of four boards, yet they can, and often do, have a different tone at each board. Same posters, different tone.

I have no problem with that. I'll stick to the board that has the most positive tone.

Again, and to avoid being overly repetitions, for the final time in this thread, my major point is that boards may be different and poster's behavior may be different. We should allow that. (Hell, we should encourage that!) If this board wants to be different, we should honor that. What someone posts at Eteamz should have no consequence to me here.

Please check all baggage at the door.

If you'd like to continue on any point here, please feel free to email me. Bear in mind, though, that I'm on vaction and won't see my email until next Thursday.

Peace.

Garth

A clarification...
 

Steve,

Just a few small points in clarification:

The Moderator (Admin) for The Official Forum is Bradley Batt, a partner with Jimmie Flores in RightSports Inc who own this and a number of other related officiating sites.

Carl Childress is NOT the Moderator (Admin) of this board, nor to the best of my personal knowledge of any other board owned or operated by RightSports Inc., eReferee.com or eUmpire.com - neither are any of the other writers and contributors to eUmpire.com Internet magazine.

Carl Childress IS the Contributing Editor at eUmpire.com Internet Magazine, which is also owned by RightSports Inc. That position does NOT confer any control over The Official Forum, but it DOES require the exercise of a certain amount of personal restraint in this Forum that might not be required elsewhere. That applies for ALL of the staff of writers and editors at eUmpire.com, equally. As employees of the board owners, albeit in another separate enterprise, we feel we cannot be seen to be upsetting our employer's customers.

In view of the constraints we have on our behaviour in this Forum, most of us feel it is grossly unfair for anyone to criticise our performances on other boards HERE when we can't really respond HERE. If criticised elsewhere, we still have some constraints on our ability to respond but nothing like having our employer moderating our posts! Can you see the inequity in what you have proposed, Steve?

If you have a grievance with any of our behaviour on another board then please, as Garth requests, restrict your complaints to those boards where we have some ability at least to defend ourselves in a like manner.

Carl said "I have not called anyone names on THIS board, except in obvious jest" {my emphasis}

You said "You DID call me a name on another board"(sic)

You may be correct, Steve, but so was Carl. I don't believe your characterising him as a hypocrite on THIS board is appropriate, given that he cannot respond in kind here for the reasons outlined. In any event, whether you are right or wrong the tone of the whole board suffers from such accusations, and none of us wants that! Agreed?

Please let us all henceforth suck up our pride and agree to leave disputes from other forums where they belong, and instead try to preserve the freedom and dignity of this board. They are what makes it unique and I'm sure attracts a number of the posters.

Cheers.

Garth & Warren, I hope you know I am relatively new to the forums. I've seen Warren's posts throughout although not necessarily Garth's. I hope you would agree I have attempted to maintain my own dignity anywhere you've seen me on the net. I was not the one initiating name calling or even inuendo, and you'll find very little, if any, of that as response from me to others employing those tactics. Much like Warren, who is extremely dignified in all the posts I've seen from him. That doesn't mean he nor I lack the necessary tools to make our points regarding the conduct of others.

I am unfamiliar with those attacking you in the past, Garth, and upset by those who may attempt to attack Warren. Those ploys are usually used when you lack the tools to make your point legitimately and it certainly detracts from the content of what you are attempting to prove. It's likely you are both good at making your points without need for those tactics. The most disgruntling thing about these forums is, indeed, the conduct. IMO, anybody associated with management of a forum should certainly maintain their dignity elsewhere, despite the cheap shots you take due to your position. If management personnel feel they must respond in an undignified manner, one could use a pseudonym at least elsewhere to maintain your management dignity for your own board. No different than umpiring, I hope you don't go get blistering drunk at the east side pub wearing your umpire uniform. At least change before going if that possibility exists. Wouldn't you agree with that? I do not like to compromise my dignity for any reason, but neither do I like it attacked. Just a suggestion.

Based on what I have seen, I agree that those in your positions take uncalled for cheap shots in numbers well beyond anything that's been done to cause such. Carl, I have seen, has on occassion gone beyond my ethical limits with personal remarks, obviously not beyond his limits. This may be the cause of some of the attacks upon him. However,I don't expect others to accept my ethical limits.

In closing, I have not reviewed my posts but I do not believe that I referred to Carl as a hypocrite as one of you summarized I did---that would be name calling. I did indicate that I felt his actions were hypocritical. That can occur without the knowledge you are doing it. If a person continues doing it after they are aware of it, they THEN become a hypocrite. At least that would be my definition. There IS a difference. Mistakes can happen.
I will bow out of the conduct issue that's been so tread upon thusfar.

It would be nice to understand if arm movement is required by the Fed in feints---fact or opinion. I know that was addressed somewhere along the line.

With Respect,

Steve Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Dec 31st, 2000 at 11:39 PM]

How things can change in just 6 months.........
 

<b>Carl Childress (quoted from earlier in this thread):</b>
"<i>8.05(b) and (c) are a tandem, sir. <u>You can't have the one without the other</u>. Each explains part of the issue at hand. 8.05(b) explains that <u>a feint includes a throwing motion</u>. 8.05(c) expalins that a pitcher must step toward a base before throwing. The FED book says before throwing or feinting. </i>

<hr color=blue>


Recently, I found the following quote from Carl Childress posted on the URC to be quite interesting, particularly with memory of this long and heated debate regarding whether or not "arm movement" was required as part of a feint:

<b>Carl Childress (quoted 6/14/01 from URC; General Discussions; Balks):</b>
<i>"A feint is anything that simulates a throw. <u>That might be a step (without arm motion</u>, at least in the OBR as per PBUC manual), a step with arm motion, or a simple swing of the torso."</i>

<hr color=blue>

For one who couldn't seem to understand or agree 6 months ago that a feint COULD be initiated merely with a step to a base, Carl sure seems to have changed his opinion now.
I suspect the inuendos and insults he initiated were, indeed, quite needless. Obviously those opposing his thoughts, or at least what his thoughts were 6 months ago, were not wrong in their statements and, indeed, knew what they were talking about. That is true based upon Childress' statements of today regarding the issue. However, we may need to recheck later to assure his opinions have not once again changed.

I suspect this latest statement of his on URC should put closure to this once hotly contested issue. "Arm motion" is not necessary for there to be a feint, and therefore, a feint without arm motion is legal when driving back a runner to a base provided the pitcher has legally stepped from the rubber toward that base.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Edited by Bfair on Jun 15th, 2001 at 10:01 AM]

I just glanced through the posts and I got that no arm motion in OBR but it must be in FED. I don't see any difference in positon. What say ye.

There is nothing in Fed stating "arm motion" is required. By Carl's post of URC, it can be seen he now agrees a feint can be done with a step only. A feint is all that is required by Fed provided the legal step to the base occurred. Therefore, F1, only stepping legally to the base would suffice as a feint in Fed. That, indeed, would make the Fed no different than NCAA or OBR in this situation.

Freix

Re: IIITBTSB
 

.

I called a balk at second for F1 not stepping towards second as the runner was stealing towards third. F1 seeing the runner going towards third, stepped in the direction of the advancing runner. I wasn't sure if I made the right call or not but I was a little confused in two aspects:

1) The pitcher didn't make any initial arm movement towards second. I was wondering at the time if a foot movement towards the bag constituted a legal fake?

2) I wasn't sure what stepping towards the bag meant. How close does F1 have to step towards the bag for the umpire to define his movement as stepping towards the bag? In the case I mentioned above, F1 stepped towards the advancing runner in my opinion. But the coach argued that he stepped towards the bag. I really didn't have a good explantion for him.

Also, F1 can balk towards second by stopping his motion with his non pivot foot while it is in the air and then turning that non-pivot foot towards second.

[Edited by Gre144 on Jun 16th, 2001 at 09:57 AM]

Re: Re: IIITBTSB
 

Greg, I would think in your scenerio that F1 could have legally stepped toward 2nd (the runner's original base) or 3rd (the base he was advancing to) and still be legal. I would not require arm movement. Is not the foot movement itself a feint indicating where he intends to go?

I, therefore, would not likely have called a balk provided F1 gained distance and direction with his step. As for F1 raising his leg, hanging it, and then continuing to 2nd--------I would expect Tee to comment that would be a balk by not going to home. Everyone who knows Tee knows his philosophy that it is impossible to balk going to 2nd, right, Tee ??? LOL

Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
 

So are you saying that if a runner is advancing towards thrid you do not have to step towards either second or third? Are you also saying that if a runner is advancing towards thrid the fielder can step directly towards the advancing runner?

Re: Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
 

Just like the 45 degree angle provided to first base in consideration of "stepping directly to", that same benefit is provided to other bases. Therefore, since F1 could legally go to 2nd or 3rd in his move to put out the advancing runner, and these 45 degree angles are, indeed, adjacent to each other, the answer to your question is YES.

He may step to the runner in that scenerio. He is either within the 45 of 2nd base or the 45 of 3rd base, both being legal bases for him to move to. Since he is not required to throw to either of these bases, the legal step could allow him to disengage the rubber, charge the runner so as to make him commit to either base, and begin the rundown.

I hope this hasn't been too confusing. Did you understand the point?

Just my opinion,

Freix

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
 

Is the 45 degree and from the halfway point between second and third back to the pitcher's mound and the up to second base? What I really want to know is the following: Is there any situation between first and second or second and third where F1 is not considered as stepping towards the base?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IIITBTSB
 

First, regarding the 45 degrees allowable: To third it will be 45 to either side of base from center of rubber. Same definition for 2nd. That is why in your scenerio with the runner advancing to third he can merely step. Since it is legal for him to step to either base (and he need not throw), when he brings his nonpivot foot backward it should land in either of those quadrants. Both quadrants would be legal. Now, if he were to step in one quadrant and deliver to the opposite base, that would be a balk for not throwing to the base he stepped to. Seldom, if ever, does that occur on the play in your scenerio. Usually F1 steps and merely disengages without throwing.

Certainly it is <u>possible</u> to step to one area while throwing to another. No different than LH F1 stepping toward home and delivering the throw to 1st. On rare occasion I have seen R2 only and RH pitcher brings nonpivot foot back and rather than continuing toward 2nd he will kick his foot downward and toward third (more off the end of rubber than really behind it toward 2nd). He is trying to deceive the runner hoping the foot has not tipped off the throw to 2nd.

In both scenerios, this action results in an very open and awkward shoulder turn whereby F1 must open his body significantly in order to "twist" so as to deliver the ball on target to the base. When you see this awkward twist in F1's throwing motion, it should be a tipoff to you that he is not stepping where he is throwing. Just "how far" off the direct step is your judgement.

Try it yourself sometime. If you are LH, step to home and deliver to 1st. If RH, step to home and deliver to 3rd. You will feel and see the "shoulder twist" I discuss. Now, step direct to where you want to throw. No shoulder twist. Don't use it to determine a balk, but it should highlight to you he may not be stepping where he is throwing.

Finally, I will list a play I have seen on several occasions that is illegal:
With R1 and R3, righthanded F1 steps TOWARD HOME while faking the throw to 3rd as in the 3-1 move. Pretending and hoping the officials think he stepped toward 3rd, he then turns to try for the runner at 1st. This is highly deceiving to an R1 considering advancing to 2nd. R1 sees F1's foot go to home and breaks for 2nd. F1, with the illegal fake to third, holds ball on the fake throw and typically R1 becomes meat. It takes concentration and gonads on behalf of the officials to make the proper call and balk the pitcher. I believe this is a taught play at higher levels that will really test the officials and their willingness to make a call. The defense is risking, of course, balking in a run. I have seen it not called moreso than I have seen it called.

Just my opinion,

Freix