R1 on second. Right handed pitcher. The pitcher feeling the runner is going, throws to the 3rd baseman who is about 8 feet away from the base (toward the SS position).

Is this a balk because he did not throw "directly toward a base"? 6-2-4 (b)

No.

The pitcher is only required to throw to FIRST base.

Rich & Bob,
 

How soon until this morphs into "throwing to an unoccupied base?"

Tee

Re: Rich & Bob,
 

Give it time, give it time. Shall I preempt it by reminding people that you can throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play?

But in the situation listed, the pitcher is throwing to neither an occupied base, or an unoccupied base, but between them. The question is the legality of throwing someplace other than a base if the rules state (FED only) that the pitcher must step "directly toward a base (occupied or unoccupied).

The step *is* to either second or third. The *throw* only has to be to a base if the base is FIRST base.

The interpretation is that if his step is more towards the target base than any other base, then he has fulfilled the requirement of stepping to the base. If he throws to a point 8 feet away from 3B, then it is still closer to 3B than it is to 2B or the plate, so it's legal.

Re: Rich & Bob,
 

Right Now!

Throwing to an unoccupied base to retire a runner or make a play is legal. But if the runner was not going on the play, wouldn't it then be a balk?

I don't have my rule book with me, could someone please quote the rule.

Thanks.

And the survey says,
 

Two different interps by different rules:

FED: Any feint by the runner allows F1 to throw to the next base in an attempt to retire said runner. This has been interpreted to mean that even a jab step or a head movement allows the throw.

OBR: The runner must make a true fake to the next base. This has been interpreted to mean that steps must be included in the fake or the balk is to be called.

While there seems to be little difference in these two interps the are, in fact, slightly different.

And we know under either rule that a pitcher can throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to retire an advancing runner.

Te

"FED: Any feint by the runner allows F1 to throw to the next base in an attempt to retire said runner. This has been interpreted to mean that even a jab step or a head movement allows the throw."

This sounds like a FED "Softball" interpretaion, not baseball. Would not then a simple leadoff from second be enough for the pitcher to throw to third?

The basic question was though, is throwing to a fielder,not playing at a base and thus not directly toward a base, enough to be considered "throwing directly to a base" as stated in FED rules?

Hahahaha,
 

I have not, nor will I ever, read a softball rule book.

The interpretation I have given you was in the FED newsletter and is an answer to the post directly above my own.

Again, a pitcher while in contact with the pitcher's plate, is required to throw directly ONLY TO FIRST BASE. The rule does not apply to second or third base.

Tee

I fail to see why anyone would consider this illegal, unless there is NO play and the throw is to an unoccupied base.

Assuming the runner made a feint toward third,...
A) The pitcher must step toward a base - but regardless of where he lands, he's either stepping toward second base or third base (even if he lands directly in between) - either of which are legal.
B) HE DOESN'T HAVE TO THROW THE BALL ... so why would you penalize for throwing it, even if it doesn't to all the way to a base or directly to a base.

This question comes up every year and the reason is the play just looks bad. Nine out of ten times it results in some type of out and the offensive coach screams "balk." Some coaches know the rule and are just trying to buy a call. Others just don't know the rule. We had a play the other day....R1 takes off for 2B, pitcher wheels and throws to SS covering 2B, good tag, out. Offensive coach screams "that's a balk, the pitcher can't throw to an unoccupied base." This guy has been around for awhile. "I've been teaching my kids for fifteen years that that is a balk and you're telling me I have been wrong for fifteen years?" Uh-huh.