Calling Balks and the value of reading these forums.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

If he *jumps* then I don't think he's *stepped* off.

OK, I'm willing to be convinced: is there any authority for the proposition that, in the circumstances we are discussing here, it makes a difference if he "steps" [one foot at a time], or "jumps" [both feet off the ground simultaneously]?

Again: LHP "jumps", pivot foot land behind the rubber, he does not separate his hands until after his feet are back on the ground. Any case plays or other precedent that this does NOT constitute "stepping off"?

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
OK, I'm willing to be convinced: is there any authority for the proposition that, in the circumstances we are discussing here, it makes a difference if he "steps" [one foot at a time], or "jumps" [both feet off the ground simultaneously]?

Again: LHP "jumps", pivot foot land behind the rubber, he does not separate his hands until after his feet are back on the ground. Any case plays or other precedent that this does NOT constitute "stepping off"?

From the Casebook Comment to 8.01(a):

"In disengaging the rubber the pitcher must step off with his pivot foot and not his free foot first."

I'm not aware of any support in the authoritative literature for the interpretation that a jump off the rubber constitutes a proper disengagement. The only time jumping off the rubber is addressed is when the jump-spin move is described, which as I noted earlier is interpreted as a "from the rubber" move.

[cbfoulds]

Geez, Dave: 8.01a is about the Windup, where BOTH feet are in contact w/ the rubber. This guy was in the set - only the pivot foot is in contact.

First you are telling me about a RHP who feints [this was a LHP who threw]; now this. Try posting something actually relevent, OK?

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
My disagreement was with the "any kind of jump move.../ both feet MUST land in front of the rubber...." assertion. If a LHP "goes airborne" w/ both feet simultaneously, his pivot landing behind the rubber, it seems to me that he has probably "stepped off", as I am aware of no precedent to the contrary.

Just 'cause he "jumps" don't necessarily make it the kind of "jump-step" to which you are referring. [/B]

If the jump is part of his throwing motion - then it really doesn't matter WHERE F1's feet land. A pitcher is allowed to align his feet for a pickoff attempt, and that alignment, if begun while in contact with the rubber, is considered to have originated FROM the rubber - even if his pivot foot ends up off the rubber.

The most classic example of this is a RHP's jump move toward 1st. His pivot usually ends up in FRONT of the rubber. It could just as easily end BEHIND the rubber. It makes no difference. It's a throw FROM the rubber in both cases.

I still can't visualize what the pitcher in your example did. It sounds like he simply went into an epileptic fit. That would be a balk.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
OK, I'm willing to be convinced: is there any authority for the proposition that, in the circumstances we are discussing here, it makes a difference if he "steps" [one foot at a time], or "jumps" [both feet off the ground simultaneously]?

FED 6-1-3 -- the reference to the jump turn is the same as "turning on the pivot foot" to throw to a base. Also, "he may lift his pivot foot in a STEP backward." Also, "AFTER the pitcher has placed his pivot foot on the ground, he THEN has the right to throw or feint ... the same as any other infielder." (emphasis added)

Combine that with the "feint requires a step but does not require arm motion" language from some case play, and the fact that the non-pivot foot will move in a step toward the base, I think it's clear that the jump turn is a move toward a base no matter where the pivot foot lands.

Finallly, NCAA 9-1e AR "To 'step off' the pitcher's rubber, the pitcher must 1) step back off the rubber and 2) disengage the pivot foot before moving the free foot."

That said, once upon a time, I was taught as you were -- if the pivot foot is behnd the rubber, it's a disengagment; if the pivot foot end up in front of the rubber, it's not. I didn't know enough to ask for support for that position at the time; I've not seen any since.

Question: If (before this discussion, or still if you haven't changed your mind), F1 makes this jump turn and the pivot foot lands behind the runner and F1 throws the ball out of play, how many bases are you going to award?



[Edited by bob jenkins on Mar 21st, 2005 at 08:55 AM]

[Dave Hensley]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Geez, Dave: 8.01a is about the Windup, where BOTH feet are in contact w/ the rubber. This guy was in the set - only the pivot foot is in contact.

First you are telling me about a RHP who feints [this was a LHP who threw]; now this. Try posting something actually relevent, OK?

The pitching rules make no distinction between lefthanded or righthanded pitchers, and professional instruction in defining a proper disengagement makes no distinction between disengaging while in windup or set position.

I am, however, delighted for you to continue with the interpretation you have come up with. Have a nice day.

[cbfoulds]

Guys, guys:

I have no problem with what y'all are saying about a jump-TURN. That is not the situation under consideration.

Again: assume a LHP, in the stretch, who came set;
who "jumped", but DID NOT TURN [he continued to face 1st];
his pivot foot landed behind the rubber; and
he threw to 1st.

Now, presuming that he did not separate his hands until AFTER his pivot foot was on the ground behind the rubber, why is it a balk that he "jumped" rather than "stepped"?

[David Emerling]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Guys, guys:

I have no problem with what y'all are saying about a jump-TURN. That is not the situation under consideration.

Again: assume a LHP, in the stretch, who came set;
who "jumped", but DID NOT TURN [he continued to face 1st];
his pivot foot landed behind the rubber; and
he threw to 1st.

Now, presuming that he did not separate his hands until AFTER his pivot foot was on the ground behind the rubber, why is it a balk that he "jumped" rather than "stepped"?

Ohhhhhhh!

I get it now. That's a much better explanation!

That is a classic move that is in most left-handers' arsenal.

It really doesn't involve "jumping", however.

To legally execute this move, the LHP's pivot foot must go behind the runner as the first movement. But it's lightning fast and, if done properly, it all looks rather simulataneous. The umpire should allow this move. It is extremely common.

I think what you're describing is the classic "snap throw" many left-handers use toward 1st. If you've never seen it before, it looks rather awkward because he never steps toward 1st with his free foot. Normally that would be illegal because a pitcher is required to step in the direction of the base while in contact with the rubber. But, since the pitcher first stepped off, that rule doesn't apply. He's an infielder!

The move looks a lot like a gunslinger making a quick draw.

If the pitcher doesn't make the throw, it should not be a balk because it's legal to fake a throw to 1st when disengaged from the rubber.

Still, I'm not sure if this is what the pitcher did. I'm still somewhat confused why the LHP needed to "jump."

If, in the umpire's opinion, the "jump" was intended to deceive the runner into thinking the pitcher was attempting to throw to a base for a pickoff attempt, and, his free foot did not move in the direction of the that base ... I would call that a balk.

If the pitcher just pops into the air like some kind of Mexican jumping bean, he better land with his free foot toward a base that is occupied. And if that base is 1st, he better make a throw.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[Edited by David Emerling on Mar 21st, 2005 at 02:28 PM]

[Tim C]

Insert Heavy -sigh- here:

" . . . both feet must land in front of the rubber,"

Yet another incorrect statement by an umpire.

[Manny A]

Originally posted by cbfoulds

Again: assume a LHP, in the stretch, who came set;
who "jumped", but DID NOT TURN [he continued to face 1st];
his pivot foot landed behind the rubber; and
he threw to 1st.

Now, presuming that he did not separate his hands until AFTER his pivot foot was on the ground behind the rubber, why is it a balk that he "jumped" rather than "stepped"?

Seems to me the fundamental issue here is the legal way to disengage the rubber. Most pitchers in the Set position disengage the rubber by simply stepping back with their pivot foot. The question is: can a pitcher disengage by jumping up in the air and then landing by straddling the rubber? No twisting, no turning, just jumping up with both feet and then landing with the back foot behind the rubber?

Since the rules and interpretations indicate that the only legal way to disengage is to STEP back, one could argue that the jump is not a legal way to disengage. For example, J/R states: It is a balk if a pitcher fails to disengage the rubber properly. Such pitcher is still in contact for the purpose of a subsequent throw. A pitcher can disengage properly only if he steps his pivot foot backward of and off the pitching rubber, and does so without interruption or hesitation.

Manny Aponte

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Guys, guys:

I have no problem with what y'all are saying about a jump-TURN. That is not the situation under consideration.

Again: assume a LHP, in the stretch, who came set;
who "jumped", but DID NOT TURN [he continued to face 1st];
his pivot foot landed behind the rubber; and
he threw to 1st.

Now, presuming that he did not separate his hands until AFTER his pivot foot was on the ground behind the rubber, why is it a balk that he "jumped" rather than "stepped"?

Because the pitcher violated this:

Finallly, NCAA 9-1e AR "To 'step off' the pitcher's rubber, the pitcher must 1) step back off the rubber and 2) disengage the pivot foot before moving the free foot."


Thus, he hasn't stepped off. IF he hasn't stepped off, he must have made a motion to first or to home. Eiother is a balk.

[cbfoulds]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Because the pitcher violated this:

Finallly, NCAA 9-1e AR "To 'step off' the pitcher's rubber, the pitcher must 1) step back off the rubber and 2) disengage the pivot foot before moving the free foot."


Thus, he hasn't stepped off. IF he hasn't stepped off, he must have made a motion to first or to home. Eiother is a balk.

Thanks, Bob. (2) says it pretty clearly. I don't do much NCAA [only Fall Ball], so I'm not as up on those rulings as I should be.

I'm presuming that your position is that in the absence of contrary authority: rule the same in FED and youth/OBR? I can live w/that.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by cbfoulds
Nick:
I agree that both of your sitches are [at least probably] balks. However, there are parts of your explanations to large I could not disagree with more.

The non-italicised part is correct [and the reason why this was probably a balk]: I don't know where the part I put in italics comes from. If F1 does his Mexican Jumping Bean act with his hands together, and lands with one foot in front and the pivot behind the rubber before he separates his hands: it seems to me that he has met the rule req's for "stepping off". Is there a Case Book play or manual reference I have forgotten?

'Course, Coach was wrong: if his hands separated before his pivot foot landed on the ground behind the rubber, then he did not "step off" prior to the pick attempt, and his stride foot must gain distance and direction toward the base, ot it's a balk. I am presuming that this is what happened, and why you correctly balked him.

The pitching motion part I'll give you, but the part about any step off has to be before F1 starts to throw to a base is just wrong. He can't hesitate or double-clutch, true: but it's not separately a balk if he steps back off the rubber. Coach is wrong here, again, stepping off AFTER separating his hands is no defense to failing to gain distance and direction. Your reason for this balk is adequately explained in the first post: "Non-piviot foot never moves"

Bob's advice is sound, to the extent you need to explain a balk, stick to words out of the Rule Book. Any time you need to resort to "interpretations" that are not near word-for-word out of the text, there is a better-than-even chance you will be wrong; either in the explanation or in calling the balk itself.

cowboy:

If he separates his hands [after coming set], THEN steps off, and never moves his stride foot, that's a balk. Always.

I'll agree with you on that, if it is obvious that he did that. The way I read the original post the seperation of the hands, step off, and throw was done so quickly that I cannot see it being called a balk as the move was in an obvious move to first. It is like mentioned by Jessie and the other instructors at the camp I went to concerning the bend in the knee. The pitcher is going to slighlty bend the knee in making a move to a bag or the plate and that if there is no hesitation once the knee bends slightly and the rest of his move, to not call that a balk. If there is hesitation then nail it. In this case, if the time between the hands seperating and the "step off" is so minimal that it would be nit picking, digging for boogers or whatever other term you want to put on it. I would have to really see the move to really determine if I would call it a balk or not.

[bern barton]

cudo's to Rich for telling the pitcher what he needs to improve upon. Let's face it, guys -- we're not at the Professional level of baseball -- we're at a level where the coaches, and certainly MOST players, do not always know the rules. Sure, it would be nice to have the coach explain what the rules are to the kids, but it's also incumbent upon Umpires, and those of us that love the game, to supply MUCH needed knowledge to these kids (and their coaches) to help them learn. Trust me, all of them gain a new respect for you if you're willing to impart your wisdom, notwithstanding the fact that we're making our sport much better by educating players and coaches on how the game should be played. Kids need encouragement, and helping them understand what they did wrong in a proactive, rational and non-defensive way allows them to respect the Umpire for his knowledge, and take away something from the game.

Sorry for the soap-box.

[Tim C]

" . . . but it's also incumbent upon Umpires, and those of us that love the game, to supply MUCH needed knowledge to these kids (and their coaches) to help them learn."

-------------------------------------

I'm sorry I am an umpire and not a rat.

I'll stick to umpiring.