Out of play on 3-1 move (FED)

[David Emerling]

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. RULING: 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 ANY 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 second 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 completion 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

[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

[mcrowder]

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?

[SanDiegoSteve]

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.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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?

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.

Play: 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

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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

[David Emerling]

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