Out of play on 3-1 move (FED)

[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