Balk, or not?

[Rog]

NFHS Rules:
SITUATION 16: Team A's pitcher engages the pitching plate with both hands together in front of his body. R1, on third base, breaks for home. The pitcher steps off the pitching plate sideways with his pivot foot. The pitcher then throws to the third baseman, who throws to the catcher for the tag on the runner.
??? Balk, or not.....

[ump24]

Definite balk! The only legal disengagement of the rubber is off the back. To step towards third with the pivot foot is not the back. Sounds to me as though the pitcher paniced and tried to take the shortest route.

[GarthB]

FED????


If so, I assume Pitcher was in Set, since he can't pick off from wind-up.

From the set, a step sideways by the pitcher is a step back off the rubber. (or front off the rubber)

So what you mean by sideways? Towards first? Towards Third? Toward Home? Towards Second?

GB

[Rog]

Originally posted by GarthB
FED????


If so, I assume Pitcher was in Set, since he can't pick off from wind-up.

From the set, a step sideways by the pitcher is a step back off the rubber. (or front off the rubber)

So what you mean by sideways? Towards first? Towards Third? Toward Home? Towards Second?

GB

Garth:
This is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.
Typical Fed question it sems.
See:
http://www.nfhs.org/rules-baseball.htm
"Situation 16"
The ruling is a balk; but, the situation is a bit vague.....

[GarthB]

Sorry, I didn't notice the "Situation 16" liner.

Yep, typical FED wording. In this case when FED says sideways, they mean towards third or first, which in reality is forward or backward for the pitcher.

"Backward"in reference to a pitcher in FED ALWAYS means towards second, no matter the position of the pitcher.

Any clearer yet? Imagine if they had FED in Australia and we had to read Warren's Aussie English explaining FED's English.....man, I just got a headache.

Any way, Balk! Improper disengagement. Repeat the down, ten yards from point of infraction. Or something like that.

GB

[GarthB]

So what FED is indicating to us here is that whenever they refer to a pitcher with his hands in front of his body, they mean he is in wind-up postion.

Ya know, I love FED, seriously. I think FED rules make sense, I think they have the best organized rule and casebook system. But they are just terrible at setting up situations of their own system.

Maybe there's an opening in Indianapolis for a wordsmith.

GB

[Rog]

That was going to be my next issue.....
is it any wonder umps get so aggravated taking NFHS tests?

Originally posted by HOLDTHE
The ruling quotes 6-1-2. So they are must be saying the pitcher is in the windup position.

The should have spelled it out.

HT

[GarthB]

Jim,

My pitfall in these "situations" is my old desire from coaching days to pick off the runner. When I see R3 and no mention of two outs, I see a RH pitcher in set position.

Obviously, when taking the FED test, or any other for that matter, I have to push that aside and think "casebook". In which case, as soon as I hear "hands in front of body", then I think, "wind-up".

GB

[Rog]

I'm going to s l o w down when reading from now on.
But, I still think next years test should include a video.....

Originally posted by Jim Mills

I didn't think it was unclear, as FED goes. There was R3 (FED called it R1 on third base). The pitcher took a legal pitching position in the windup. I admit, I inferred the windup because it says he engages the rubber with both hands together in front of his body. That is illegal if F1 wants to take the set position.

From the windup, F1 may deliver to the batter, or step off legally. He may not attempt a pick-off without legally disengaging first.

His step-off sideways was with the pivot foot toward third base, not off the back of the rubber. That is not a legal disengagement--balk. It is a balk irrespective of whether F1 was in the windup or the set.

The point seemed to be that merely because F1 is in the windup does not mean he cannot attempt a pickoff. He just can't attempt it from the rubber. All they were asking was for a ruling on the legality of the stepoff.

I certainly can understand if someone interpreted it as Garth did, but my reading was that they first wanted us to see F1 legally engage the rubber before ruling on the ensuing action.

[GarthB]

I think I should have said when I hear "pitcher engages the plate with his hands in front of his body", FED is talking windup.

We're not going to go throught the whole test are we? I wrote my answers down, I can just give you the T's and F's
as I have them.

GB