Out of play on 3-1 move (FED)

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I think that once the pitcher has stepped toward 3rd with a legal feint ... that is considered an event that eliminates the significance of whether his foot is still on the rubber. In my opinion, after the feint, the pitcher is now considered disengaged, whether on or off the rubber. That event is over. The pitcher is now an infielder.

The pitcher is not an infielder as it is still a balk if he feints a throw to first base.

[ManInBlue]

I think this is a ridiculous scenario. I agree with your point, first of all. Maybe not the entire thought process, but the point.

My point is simply that I'd like to see a pitcher make this move and maintain contact with the rubber. It's pretty close to impossible. And if he does, he probably didn't step toward first, so you have a balk anyway - FED ruling dead ball, the throw is irrelevent.

I don't think this scenario should have been mentioned in the case book, personally. If he steps toward 1B to make that throw, he HAS to disengage the rubber with his right (pivot) foot.

I don't think the feint to 3B in and of itself grants him to be off the rubber. But I do think he must disengage to properly throw to 1B.

editted to add - Your point is quite valid considering F1 can make this feint toward 3B and is not obligated to throw to first - the ONLY way this is legal (the feint to 1B) is if F1 has disengaged. Thus he MUST be an infielder at this point. Somewhere in the process F1 has to have disengaged the rubber.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by ManInBlue

My point is simply that I'd like to see a pitcher make this move and maintain contact with the rubber. It's pretty close to impossible. And if he does, he probably didn't step toward first, so you have a balk anyway - FED ruling dead ball, the throw is irrelevent.

It isn't that hard. I just stood up and did it right now.

[JRutledge]

Not sure why this is hard to understand. If a pitcher is allowed to fake to 3rd and to 1st and you do not consider the pitcher a fielder now, then it is a balk. You cannot have it both ways. Either you accept the casebook interpretation or you are going to have to call a balk by your philosophy. I would not make this difficult. The pitcher in this situation is clearly off the rubber so any throw they make is just like any other fielder.

Peace

[DG]

In FED, a pitcher may feint to 3rd and then throw to first with or without disengaging the rubber. In NCAA and OBR if the pitcher does not disengage during the feint to 3B it would be a balk to then throw or feint to 1B. See BRD 362. So in FED it's a one base award if he stays in contact with the rubber and 2 base award if he disengaged before the throw to 1B.

It is difficult to feint to 3B without disengaging, but it can be done.

[David Emerling]

To add to the discussion:

Isn't it true that whenever the rulebook uses the term "disengage the rubber" it always means stepping BACK off the rubber?

There's a difference between "not in contact with the rubber" and "disengaging the rubber."

For instance, a right-handed pitcher is almost always "not in contact with the rubber" when he makes a pickoff attempt at 1st. Yet, for the purposes of applying the rule, since he did not actually "disengage the rubber" (i.e. step BACK), the throw is considered to have occurred from in contact. Apparently, FED doesn't make this distinction - according to the casebook ruling.

In the case we're discussing, the pitcher never really steps BACK and disengages the rubber. So, if we're going to apply the same standard, whether the pitcher breaks contact with the rubber while throwing to 3rd or not, he never really steps BACK and legally "disengages the rubber."

I still maintain the rules that address the issue of whether the pitcher has disengaged the rubber or not assume that the pitcher is starting from one of two legal pitching positions. When a pitcher places his foot on the rubber, he MUST assume either the wind-up or set position.

Once the pitcher has made a pickoff attempt, or a fake attempt, anything he does after that cannot be initiated from either of the two legal pitching positions. So, whether his foot is actually in contact with the rubber or not when making the NEXT play, it can hardly be governed by the rules of the pitcher being IN CONTACT with the rubber.

In my opinion.

Yet, I realize, the FED ruling on this caseplay runs counter to my thinking.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[nickrego]

I think you have to consider the step / feint to 3rd base as stepping off / disengaging the Rubber for the sake of consistency, and here is why…

If a pitcher, while engaged with the Rubber, spins and steps towards 2nd base, and either throws or feints to 2nd base, isn’t the pitcher considered having stepped off / disengaged the Rubber ? YES.

The pitcher didn’t step “back” off the Rubber with the Pivot Foot in this case either. They stepped towards 2nd with the Non-Pivot foot, just as it has been described stepping towards 3rd with the Non-Pivot foot to throw or feint. If a pitcher made this move to 2nd, and then over threw to 1st into DBT, you’d awards 2 bases. So why would 3rd base be any different ?

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by nickrego

I think you have to consider the step / feint to 3rd base as stepping off / disengaging the Rubber for the sake of consistency, and here is why…

If a pitcher, while engaged with the Rubber, spins and steps towards 2nd base, and either throws or feints to 2nd base, isn’t the pitcher considered having stepped off / disengaged the Rubber ? YES.

The pitcher didn’t step “back” off the Rubber with the Pivot Foot in this case either. They stepped towards 2nd with the Non-Pivot foot, just as it has been described stepping towards 3rd with the Non-Pivot foot to throw or feint. If a pitcher made this move to 2nd, and then over threw to 1st into DBT, you’d awards 2 bases. So why would 3rd base be any different ?

You have very eloquently stated my exact point.

This is why I think the FED casebook play is misguided ... well ... completely incorrect!

The FED ruling indicates that when the pitcher is making a second play, it matters as to whether his foot happens to still be touching the pitching rubber.

Although I can think of nothing in writing to back up my belief that this is not true, I do have my many years of experience telling me that there isn't an umpire in the world that would ever award R1 only one-base after the pitcher has faked to 3rd and thrown wildly to 1st, regardless of whether his pivot foot happened to be in contact with the rubber or not.

But, I guess I'm going to have to start looking for that ... as per FED 6.1.5. Oddly enough, this casebook play comes under the heading PITCHER AS AN INFIELDER.

I think the rulesmakers got this one wrong.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by nickrego

I think you have to consider the step / feint to 3rd base as stepping off / disengaging the Rubber for the sake of consistency, and here is why…

If a pitcher, while engaged with the Rubber, spins and steps towards 2nd base, and either throws or feints to 2nd base, isn’t the pitcher considered having stepped off / disengaged the Rubber ? YES.

The pitcher didn’t step “back” off the Rubber with the Pivot Foot in this case either. They stepped towards 2nd with the Non-Pivot foot, just as it has been described stepping towards 3rd with the Non-Pivot foot to throw or feint. If a pitcher made this move to 2nd, and then over threw to 1st into DBT, you’d awards 2 bases. So why would 3rd base be any different ?

Nick,

I reread your post.

In your example of the pitcher turning toward 2nd and throwing to 1st, are you saying he does this all in one motion? If so, I'd call a balk on the basis that he is not stepping directly toward the base to which he's throwing. I.E. He can't step toward 2nd and throw to 1st.

What I think you are saying is that he steps toward 2nd, fakes, and then, when that is completed, initiates a throw to 1st. Is that it?

In this latter case, I would consider the pitcher as an infielder, whether or not his foot happened to still be in contact with the rubber. I think FED would not, however, based on the casebook play.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN