Answer to second one-question test

[Carl Childress]

FED rules: F1 steps to occupied third, (1) does not make any arm motion, wheels, (2) remains on the rubber, 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 two vague OBR situations:

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)

[Bfair]

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.

[Bfair]

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.

[oregonblue]

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!

[Carl Childress]

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 fails to complete the throw." [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 faked throw?

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!"

[duckump]

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.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by duckump
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. Everything 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

[SamNVa]

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.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by SamNVa
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.

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

[Carl Childress]

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, nobody ever balked Luis again for that move. Did the Commish say something?

(2) Swivel "to second" and then deliver. That would 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."

[duckump]

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

[oregonblue]

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???

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by oregonblue
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???

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 part of the issue at hand. 8.05(b) explains that a feint includes a throwing motion. 8.05(c) expalins that a pitcher must step toward a base before throwing. The FED book says before throwing or feinting.

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

3. Finally: Until this coming season an NCAA batter completely within the lines 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 lines of the catcher's box. That seems ample reason to forbid players to erase the lines.

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 never enforced.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by duckump
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

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)

pish int. expr. contempt, impatience or disgust [imit]

tosh n. (sl.) rubbish, nonsense. [19th c. of unkn. orig.]

Both definitions courtesy of my trusty Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary 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

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by oregonblue
Warren and Carl, you are both experienced and erudite. Your comments are are thoughtful and rational.

Hmmm....

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

.... yes. I like that! Thank you for the compliment. (grin)

Warren Willson