Out of play on 3-1 move (FED)
 

I want to discuss a certain casebook play: FED 6.1.5

It says:
With R1 on third base and R2 on first base, F1 steps and feints to third and then steps and throws to first attempting to pick off R2. The throw goes into dead-ball territory. The offensive team's coach wants a balk to be called because the pitcher never threw the ball toward third. <B>RULING:</B> When the pitcher stepped off the pitching plate in his feint to third, he became an infielder. Hence, when his throw goes into dead-ball territory, all runners awarded two bases. R1 gets home and R2 gets third. Had F1 stayed on the pitching plate during his feint to third and his throw to first, all runners would be awarded one base. R1 would get home and R2 would get second. This would not be a balk as F1 made a legal feint and a legal pickoff attempt with no prior motion to pitch.

I want to focus on the base awards.

Everybody knows that if a pitcher makes a pickoff attempt while in contact with the rubber and the ball goes into dead-ball territory, all runners are awarded one base.

If the pitcher steps BACK off the rubber prior to the pickoff, all runners would be awarded two bases should the ball go into dead-ball territory.

Any jump turn that causes the pivot foot to break contact with the rubber is not considered a legal disengagement, therefore, any ball thrown into dead-ball territory will be treated the same as if the pitcher were in contact with the rubber. A one base award. This is very common when a right-handed pitcher makes a quick pickoff attempt at first. It is very common for his right foot to break contact with the rubber. But it's still considered "in contact" for the purpose of applying base awards.

OK - having established this - let's go back to the play in the FED casebook.

This case play is claiming that if the pitcher feints toward 3rd (while in contact with the rubber) and then turns and throws to 1st (while stillin contact) that it is only a one base award if the ball is thrown into dead-ball territory.

I disagree with this ruling.

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.

I claim that <b>ANY</b> throw to 1st, after first faking toward 3rd, that results in the ball going into dead-ball territory should always be a two base award. The fact that the pitcher may still have his pivot foot in contact with the rubber while making the second maneuver is completely irrelevent. The play to first was not a direct play. It was the second play. The pitcher cannot remain a pitcher on a <b>second</b> maneuver. The pitching regulations can only apply to the first maneuver; the throw/feint to 3rd.

Again, this is just an opinion of mine and I am curious what others think.

In a 1st and 3rd situation, have you ever seen a pitcher fake toward third then quickly turn toward 1st to see if he can catch R1 leaning? The pitcher neither throws to 3rd nor 1st. This happens all the time!

Would you rule a balk on the pitcher for failing to complete the throw to 1st if you happened to notice that his foot was still on the rubber?

I wouldn't!

Once the pitcher completes a legal maneuver toward 3rd, whether he throws the ball or feints ... he is now just an infielder. The <i>completion</i> of the maneuver is the equivalent of stepping off the rubber.

Now, if the pitcher remains in contact with the rubber and actually makes a throw to 3rd; if the ball should enter dead-ball territory, that would be a one base award. (Ball thrown from in contact with the rubber)

If he steps off the rubber, throws to 3rd, and the ball goes into dead-ball territory; that would be a two base award.

But once the pitcher completes the maneuver (whether feigning or throwing), and continues with a second maneuver, he is now considered an infielder and no longer engaged with the rubber. Only two-base awards are now possible.

The rules regarding whether the pitcher was in contact with the rubber (for the purposes of awarding only one base for a ball thrown into dead-ball territory) assumes that the throw is originating from one of two legal positions, the wind-up or set position. If the pitcher is not in one of the two legal positions (i.e. after faking toward 3rd), the location of his pivot foot is immaterial. He's not a pitcher any more.

Just an opinion.

I'd be curious to see some other opinions.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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 <b>second</b> play, it <i>matters</i> 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 <i>do</i> 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 <b>PITCHER AS AN INFIELDER</b>.

I think the rulesmakers got this one wrong.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

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 <i>think</i> you are saying is that he steps toward 2nd, fakes, and <i>then</i>, 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

If pitcher steps toward third and doesn't throw, he has essentially made himself an infielder. It's not like you're going to let him pitch from here, Right?

The pitcher is considered to be on the rubber when doing the 3rd to 1st move. He is not to be considered "disengaged" from the rubber, and is not considered a fielder for the purpose of this play.

Here is the NAPBL interpretation:

"It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pick-off move to first base by first moving his pivot foot in the direction of third base provided that he makes a legal step toward first base with his non-pivot foot before throwing there and provided that the move is continuous and without interruption. A pitcher who makes such a pick-off move is considered to be in contact with the rubber when he makes his throw to first base."

FED concurrs by the way. Case Book 6-2-4 SITUATION C. The pitcher can feint toward 3rd, turn and throw to first. If he throws the ball out of play the award is only one base, because he is not considered to have disengaged the rubber unless he first removes his pivot foot and steps backward off the rubber to be disengaged. He cannot feint to 3rd, turn and feint to first. This is a balk.

Apparently, FED would not agree with your most logical statement.

There's a rule that states that when the pitcher makes a throw/pitch from in contact with the pitching plate, if the ball should enter dead-ball territory, all runners are awarded ONE base.

<b>Play</b>: R2, no outs. Batter hits a comebacker to the F1. F1 checks R2 then throws to 1st. While making the throw, F1's pivot foot is in contact with the pitching rubber. The throw goes into dead-ball territory. Do you award R2 third or home?

I know this is a completely silly question, but, if you think about it, it's not too far removed from the ruling in the casebook play being discussed.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

So, pitchers who make this move MUST complete the throw to 1st or be guilty of a balk?

I've seen that play hundreds of times and not once have I ever seen it called a balk.

Interesting, though. I was not aware of that NAPBL ruling although I'm sure I've read it at some time or another. Still, something seems wrong. Are you claiming this NAPBL ruling has specifically to do with the infamous 3-1 move?

Hmmm ... maybe we're only to consider the pitcher in contact with the rubber IF he should throw the ball out-of-play. But, should not apply the standard balk rule that states a pitcher cannot fake a throw to 1st if in contact with the rubber.

That would be illogical and inconsistent.

Or, maybe I'm completely confused ... which is much more likely. :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

SanDiegoSteve,

I'm glad you made those citations. I'm also glad I brought up this play because clearly, I have some major misconceptions about this.

I guess what we're actually seeing with the 3-1 play is that the pitcher fakes to 3rd, then turns around rapidly to see if he has a play on R1. If not, he does nothing. Supposedly, this is not a balk. (Although a pitcher who turns rapidly toward 1st and makes no throw would be consider to have balked, whether faking a throw or not - true?)

If, on the other hand, he fakes to 3rd, turns around rapidly to see if he has a play on R1, fakes the throw, then it is a balk.

Maybe this analysis revolves the conflict.

Although a pitcher who turns rapidly toward 1st and makes no throw would be consider to have balked, whether faking a throw or not - true?

Hmmm ...

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Sorry, I quoted the wrong interpretation here. Dang.

Dave:

I believe that you and Steve are discussing two different moves. The move that Steve is talking about, which is covered by the NAPBL is commonly refferred to as the "jab step."


J/R


“Jab" Step (of the pivot foot): In cases of a right-handed pitcher throwing to first, or a left-handed pitcher throwing to third, or any pitcher throwing to second, a pitcher can take a "jab" or "stutter" step with his pivot foot before stepping to the base with his free foot. The motion of the "stutter" step and the resulting step of the free foot must be fluid and continuous; if the two motions are not continuous, there is a balk. Of course, the latter step must bring the free foot at, and nearer to, the pickoff base.

So, on the jab step the pitcher is still considered to be engaged as I understand it and must complete the throw to first. Now what I think your talking about is the "wheel" move where the free foot for a right handed pitcher lands toward third and then the turn is made to first. This would disengage the pitcher and a feign to first would now be legal.


Tim.

You are correct Tim. I misread the NAPBL interpretation. But in FED, he is still considered on his plate on the wheel play.

I think you're right, Tim.

At first, I thought Steve was citing something that specifically had to do with the 3-1 move. I was thinking, "Dang! I don't ever recall reading that." But now I see that you're correct - his citation is only addressing the "jab step."

So, Tim, do you disagree with the FED ruling as stated in casebook play 6.1.5.

Also, I notice that Steve's citation of FED 6-2-4 SITUATION C does not jive, verbatim, with my 2006 version of that caseplay.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Yes, this is what I am refering to.

David,

I was paraphrasing the ruling, I didn't quote it word-for-word.:)

Here is what it says in my 2005 book (I don't have the 2006):

"He might, while he is on his plate, step toward the occupied third and feint a throw, and then turn to step toward first and throw there with or without disengaging the pitcher's plate. If F1 steps and feints to first, he must first disengage the pitcher's plate or he is guilty of a balk."

Jim Evans says that the pitcher must break contact with the rubber with the pivot foot on the feint to 3rd on the 3rd to 1st move:

"On the "trick 3rd to 1st" move used by the righthander, the umpire should be especially alert for two criteria:
(1)
the pitcher may not break the back plane of the rubber with his free foot before attempting the feint to 3rd; and
(2)
in his feint to 3rd, he must break contact from the rubber with his pivot foot.
Breaking the plane would be a balk in violation of 8.01(a) and failure to break contact would be a balk in violation of 8.01(c)...not a direct step from the rubber ("while touching his plate")."

I don't see that in the rule 8.05(c) Case Book comments. It says you can't feint to third, and in practically the same motion, wheel and throw to first. It prohibits this because it is practically impossible to step directly to first. But it is possible to feint to third, in contact with the rubber, then maintain contact and step and throw to first. Two separate steps directly toward bases, yet not disengaging the runner.

I will do further research and come back later. I am more confused than I was yesterday, that's for sure.

Dave (et al),

It is my understanding that in all rules codes other than FED, a pitcher who tries the "fake to 3B & make a move to 1B" must break contact with the rubber on the feint to 3B or he has balked.

However, under FED rules only, a pitcher is allowed to keep his foot in contact with the rubber on the feint to 3B and then pivot and step & throw to 1B and it is NOT a balk.

So, under FED, if the F1 maintains contact & throws the ball out of play on the move to 1B, runners are awarded one base. If the F1 drags his foot off the rubber & then throws out of play on the throw to 1B, runner(s) are awarded 2 bases.

Now I have no idea why the FED folks have chosen to institute this daring "innovation" in the rules - personally, I wonder if the folks responsible for some of the FED rulings have ever actually seen a baseball game - but, it's their rules & I suppose they can make them whatever they want.

JM

According the MLBUM, the pitcher has to break contact before throwing to first, and according to Evans, before feinting to third.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_2_69.gif

If J/R has something different I'm going to scream!!!http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_11_2.gif

Steve,

I believe JEA & the MLBUM say exactly the same thing. Namely, that during the feint to 3B and prior to initiating the move to 1B, the F1 must break contact with the rubber or he is properly balked on the continuing move to 1B. Same in NCAA. FED's "a little different". See the BRD #362.

JM

CoachJM,

Here is the confusing part, as the MLBUM says (my emphasis):

"NOTE: With runners on first and third, if a pitcher fakes a throw to third base and then throws the ball to first base, arm motion is not required in the fake to third, although a legal step is required. Also, in the fake to third base, the pitcher must break contact with the rubber before throwing to first base. If the ball is thrown out of play in the throw to first, the pitcher would be considered an infielder for the purpose of the award."

JEA says: ". . .in his feint to 3rd, he must break contact from the rubber with his pivot foot."


See, it is a little different. Which causes me to wonder which is technically correct.:cool:

Steve,

I believe you are misreading the MLBUM text you bolded as saying 3B rather than 1B.

Mlbum says:
JEA says:
Sure sounds the same to me. The FED ruling, on the other hand, is a horse.

JM

Because 99.99% of the time F1 comes off the rubber.

If F1 comes off the rubber, he's now an infielder. I suppose the rule could be clearer: "From the rubber, the pitcheer can pitch, step back, or disengage as part of a throw or feint a throw to a base." I would have thought the bold part would be clear to all.

In the .01% of the time F1 does not remove his foot from the rubber, he can throw to first in FED, but not in NCAA or OBR. He can't feint to first in FED because he didn't disengage.

[/QUOTE]

Let me try to go through this a bit more methodically. Please jump in if you think you can shed any light on any of the following plays.

All of the plays assume R1 & R3.

Play #1: Pitcher steps toward 3rd, fakes a throw, then spins around toward 1st and makes a pickoff attempt on R1. While performing this maneuver, F1's pivot foot comes off the rubber.

OBR - Legal

FED - Legal

Play #2: Pitcher steps toward 3rd, fakes a throw, then spins around toward 1st and makes a pickoff attempt on R1. While performing this maneuver, F1's pivot remains in contact with the rubber.

OBR - Balk

FED - Legal

Play #3: Pitcher steps toward 3rd, fakes a throw, then spins around toward 1st and makes no throw since there is no play on R1. While performing this maneuver, F1's pivot comes off the rubber.

OBR - Legal

FED - ??? (not sure - open to discussion)

Play #4: Pitcher steps toward 3rd, fakes a throw, then spins around toward 1st and makes no throw since there is no play on R1. While performing this maneuver, F1's pivot remains in contact with the rubber.

OBR - Balk

FED - ??? (not sure - open to discussion)

Play #5: Pitcher steps toward 3rd, fakes a throw, then spins around toward 1st and makes a wild throw that goes into dead-ball territory. While performing this maneuver, F1 remains in contact with the rubber.

OBR - Balk (not sure of the base award. one base for the balk -or- two bases for the ball going into DBT?)

FED - Legal (one base award in accordance with casebook play 6.1.5)

Play #6: Pitcher steps toward 3rd, fakes a throw, then spins around toward 1st and makes a wild throw that goes into dead-ball territory. While performing this maneuver, F1's pivot comes off the rubber.

OBR - Legal (two base award ... pitcher is an infielder)

FED - ??? (not sure - open to discussion)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

All your rulings are correct. On the ones you question:

3) FED -- Legal

4) FED -- Balk

5) OBR -- Balk -- One base

6) Legal -- two base award.

I look at it this way. If he steps towards 3rd and does not step off it is a feint as he is still in contact with the rubber. If at that point he spins and does not throw to first, keeping the foot in contact with the ruber, then I have a balk. If he does throw towards first and tosses it into DB area 1 base award.

If he steps towards 3rd and in doing so pulls the foot away from the rubber and then turns and steps towards 1st and does not throw I have nothing. If he throws and it goes into DB area, 2 bases.

The whole point is is the foot actually in CONTACT with the rubber. Someone could bring up a jump spin (reality foot is off rubber, technically it still is) but he is not doing that it is a clear step, not a jumping motion.

Our local interpreter told me that, when pitcher feints to 3B, he disengages. Calling a balk on the "third-to-first" double feint (because it's a feint to 1B from the rubber) is a BS call and not an option.

So, under that interpretation I would have to award 2 bases on an overthrow to 1B after a feint to 3B.

If it's a FED interpreter, show him the case previously mentioned and ask him to explain.

If the pitcher feinting to third is considered to be disengaged, why wouldn't he, by the same token, be considered disengaged if he steps from the rubber toward first, and feints a throw. In this case, he's on the rubber, and it's a balk. So, I think your interpreter is wrong. You can't have it both ways.

If this were the case, all the pro interpretations would not require the pitcher to actually "break contact" before completing the throw to first. Breaking contact does not mean "disengaging," which is only accomplished by stepping backward off the rubber with the pivot foot.

I think you misunderstand.

<b>WHILE</b> making the throw to 3rd, obviously, the pitcher is engaged with the rubber. If the ball should be thrown out-of-play, it would be a one base award.

It is <b>AFTER</b> the pitcher has made the move toward 3rd that he is then considered disengaged.

My point has been that the consideration of whether the pitcher is engaged or disengaged is only pertinent when the pitcher chooses to do something from one of the two legal pitching positions, 1) wind-up or 2) set.

Once he has left one of those positions, for whatever reason, he is no longer a pitcher.

The pitcher fakes toward 3rd <b><i>as a pitcher</i></b>. That maneuver is complete. <b><i>Now he is an infielder.</i></b>.

Of course this was my original personal view. Apparently FED does not see it that way. According to FED, the pitching regulations (regarding engaged or disengaged) still apply even after the pitcher has made a previous pickoff attempt. On the <i>second</i> attempt (i.e. play), he is still considered a pitcher.

FED is making a ruling on the location of the pitcher's pivot foot even though the pitcher never steps BACK off the rubber which is what is <i>actually</i> required for a legal disengagement ... not your foot simply breaking contact with the rubber.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

David,

I was responding to mbyron's post, not any of yours. But now I must disagree with your use of the word "disengaged" in this case. Simply breaking contact is not disengaged. Not in FED, not in NCAA, not in OBR. That is why the term "break contact" is used, and is required before throwing to 1st base on the play. The pitcher is not necessarily considered off the rubber just because he feints to 3rd. He must actually, physically break contact, or else he will balk if he throws to 1st.

I also disagree with you that once he feints to 3rd from the rubber, he's not a pitcher but an infielder. No, because he did not disengage from the rubber by stepping backward with his pivot foot. That is the only proper disengagement. That is why, if from the rubber, he steps toward 3rd, throws, the ball goes into DBT, that the award is only one base. If he then subsequently breaks contact with the rubber, then he is considered an infielder, but not until.

I probably didn't make myself clear enough.

In my view, there are THREE things that cause a pitcher to become an infielder while in contact with the rubber.

The pitcher becomes a fielder immediately after he ...

1.) Steps <b>BACK</b> off the rubber
2.) Makes a play on a runner. Either a pickoff attempt or a feint.
3.) Legally delivers the ball toward the batter.

So, when I say that the pitcher becomes "disengaged" from the rubber after making a fake to 3rd, that is just my way of say, "He might as <i>well</i> be disengaged," because it has the same effect as stepping BACK off the rubber.

True, it is probably a poor way of saying it.

Again, I acknowledge that FED doesn't see it this way.

Under FED rules, if the pitcher makes a fake toward 3rd, and in the process, breaks contact with the rubber, then turns toward 1st and throws the ball into dead-ball territory, the base award is <b>two</b> bases. This indicates that FED considers a legal disengagement to be something <i>other</i> than stepping straight back.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

???

THere's a 6.2.4C in my 2006 case book that seems relevant to the play being discussed.

And when you say you have NEVER heard of a balk being called on this move, you mean that the umpire makes no discernment as to whether F1 is in contact with the rubber when making his move toward 1st. Correct?

In other words, it's simply not a balk, one way or the other.

That's how <i>I</i> would prefer to call it.

But, apparently I'm learning that I don't get to make that type of judgment. :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

The last tow sentences of teh ruling are relevant to the play being discussed. My quick reading seems to indicate that these two sentences are the same in each year's book.

It's not called because 99.9% of the time F1 comes off the rubber while stepping and feinting toward third.

My guess is that whether F1 comes off the rubber or not when feinting to 3rd has nothing to do with the umpire's decision to call (or <i>not</i> call) a balk when the pitcher feints to 1st.

I'll bet it has <i>everything</i> to do with the simple fact that nobody ever makes that call - one way or the other - notwithstanding the FED casebook examples.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

And my interpreter is saying that in the remaining .1% we'll ignore the fact that he's still in contact, because you can bet that you're the only one in the ballpark who saw it.

The other thing to bear in mind is: you can't make much of a feint to 3B with your foot still engaged.

Make the expected call.

I had a good one yesterday: feint to 3B, BALK! Why? Well, it was R2 only, and he wasn't stealing... ha!

Step toward FED-landia
 

Feinting requires distance and direction. ONE must throw toward 1B without feinting, unless ONE legally breaks contact with the plate first. A wild throw in this manner is consistent with a one base award (direct throw) or two base award (breaking contact).

A pitcher may legally step and feint to 3B and then turn and step toward 1B in ONE continuous motion while over the pitcher's plate. FED rules allow a pitcher to feint towards F3 after feinting towards F5 without properly disengaging from the pitcher's plate. The pitcher remains the PITCHER and both runners should be aware of this LEGAL attempt to deceive them. A wild throw while engaged or NOT in this manner is only consistent with a ONE base award in FED-landia.

Tee and David,

Yes, mine is from 2005, as I have no 2006 book due to not working HS any longer.

I'm sorry I wasn't specific enough. I am not working HS baseball this season. I am working LL, JR, SR, Big League, Mustang, Bronco, Pony, Colt, Palomino, American Legion, USSSA, and Triple Crown baseball. If I run out of these games I will work MABL, NABA and MSBL adult games too.

Confusing 3-1 move w/"Jab Step"
 

SanDiegoSteve,

The move NAPBL is mentioning is when the RH F1, in order to make a strong throw, "jabs" the ground with his pivot foot a few inches towards 3B, then makes a step towards 1B with his non-pivot foot and throws. This is not a feint. He must throw with this move or it's a balk.

The feint to 3B involves the non-pivot foot first (stepping towards 3B), then wheeling around to check R1. Once F1 feints to 3B, he is considered to have disengaged, no matter where his feet actually are in relation to the rubber. There is no balk.

Yes, I know. This was the post I made on page 2 which admitted misinterpreting the situation.

dddunn3d,

Certainly agree with your comments regarding the "jab step" move.

However, I'm a little confused by your statement quoted above in light of the following language from OBR 8.05(c):

Can you clarify?

JM

Exactly!

The only thing I would add is that OBR considers it a balk if the pitcher fakes to 3rd while in contact with the rubber <b>-and-</b> maintains contact with the rubber <b>-and-</b> pivots around toward first while <i>still</i> in contact with the rubber. It doesn't matter if he feints or throws in this case. It's a balk by interpretation.

I imagine, the reason OBR considers this a balk is that they view this style of maneuvering as being an all-in-one type of maneuver - which is strictly forbidden. And I understand why they are concerned about this. To be fair to R1, F1 should not be allowed to make a move toward 3rd and, all in one fluid motion, continue making a move toward 1st.

Under OBR, the pitcher cannot make a very token and abbreviated motion toward 3rd as a prelude to throwing toward 1st <i>unless</i> he breaks contact with the rubber.

In any case, if F1 executes the 3-1 move legally, there is not going to be any instance of a one base award should F1 throw the ball out-of-play when when throwing to 1st. He's an infielder and it has nothing to do with whether he stepped BACK off the rubber or not. He's already made a play to 3rd.

I think I'm finally understanding the FED view on this play. They allow the pitcher to execute this maneuver while maintaining contact with the rubber <b>OR</b> while <i>not</i> maintaining contact. Either way is legal.

However, if the pitcher <i>remains</i> in contact with the rubber the pitching regulations apply. If he feints toward 1st ... it's a balk. If he throws the ball into DBT, it's a one base award.

If the pitcher does <i>not</i> remain in contact with the rubber and he feints toward 1st ... legal! If he throws the ball into DBT, it's a two base award.

It think what I've written above is all accurate and brings this to a conclusion.

If I have some element of this incorrect, somebody please correct me.

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I disagree. The pro interps say that the pitcher must break contact, not that the move itself is considered breaking contact. He still has to remove his foot from the rubber. That's why it's written into the rules and their interpretations.

Here is an example of a 3-1 move I have seen that would be illegal under <i>both</i> sets of rules.

You may have to stand-up and act out what I'm describing to fully understand it.

The pitcher steps with his left foot toward 3rd and then pivots around (to the left), <i>on that same foot</i>, toward 1st and throws or feints.

This is illegal under OBR because the pitcher did it "all in one motion."

This is illegal under FED because the pitcher, while still in contact with the rubber, made a move toward a base without preceding with a step in that direction.

Like I said, you'll probably have to act this one out. But I've seen pitchers try this move and I've balked it every time I've seen it ... maybe 3 or 4 times in all the years I've been umpiring.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

The reason the pitcher has to break contact to perform the 3-1 move (under OBR) is to prevent it from being a continuous, all-in-one maneuver.

I believe this is just the OBR way of defining what criteria they are going to use for determining whether the pitcher executed the motion in one continuous fashion.

That's what they're trying to prevent.

Although this is a somewhat silly play, I present it for the purposes of highlighting what I think are the philosophical differences between OBR and FED on this issue.

Play: R1 and R2. F1 does an "inside move" toward 2nd base and makes no throw while stepping directly toward 2nd. F1's foot remains in contact with the rubber. Noticing R1 far off the bag, F1 then rapidly throws to 1st. The ball is thrown wildly and ends up in DBT.

OBR ruling - Despite the fact that F1's foot was in contact with the rubber when throwing to 1st, the base award is TWO BASES. The pitcher ceased being a pitcher after completing the move toward 2nd.

FED ruling - Because F1's foot was still in contact with the rubber when making the throw to 1st, the base award is ONE BASE. Also, had F1 only faked the throw to 1st, it would have been a balk.

Any opinions on these rulings?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I thought you were bringing this to a conclusion.http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_1_42.gif

Help me! I'm a sick person.

Save me from myself! :)

David Emerling
Memphis, TN