Throwing to an unoccupied base!

[UmpJM]

Bob J.,

Generally correct, but:

1) The entire free foot (or, in NCAA any part of the stride leg) must break the plane of the back of the rubber before F1 is committed to throw to second or home

2) In FED, F1 can throw to an unoccupied base if the runner even feints an advance.

#1 I completely agree.

#2. I'm confused. What you suggest is something I had never heard or read before.

So, I checked my sources, such as they are.

The rule (FED 6-2-4b) says it is a balk (with runners on base) when the pitcher is "...throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;"

The "drive back" language led me to infer that the runner must be making a legitimate attempt (vs. a feint) to the unoccupied base, or this would be a balk.

Then I read Case Play 6.2.4 Situation A (b) which supports what you say - though it is certainly not what I would consider "crystal clear".

Then I checked my BRD which, though not directly addressing this situation, seems to support my initial assertion. (BRD #386, Note 404). I realize the BRD is not "gospel", but Carl is usually pretty right on this stuff.

Is there some other source or cite that spells this out more clearly? I know you know this stuff better than I do, so I'm not arguing - just trying to understand.

These "little differences" between FED & OBR are going to be the death of me.

Thanks.

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Bob J.,



#1 I completely agree.

#2. I'm confused. What you suggest is something I had never heard or read before.

So, I checked my sources, such as they are.

The rule (FED 6-2-4b) says it is a balk (with runners on base) when the pitcher is "...throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;"

The "drive back" language led me to infer that the runner must be making a legitimate attempt (vs. a feint) to the unoccupied base, or this would be a balk.

Then I read Case Play 6.2.4 Situation A (b) which supports what you say - though it is certainly not what I would consider "crystal clear".

Then I checked my BRD which, though not directly addressing this situation, seems to support my initial assertion. (BRD #386, Note 404). I realize the BRD is not "gospel", but Carl is usually pretty right on this stuff.

Is there some other source or cite that spells this out more clearly? I know you know this stuff better than I do, so I'm not arguing - just trying to understand.

These "little differences" between FED & OBR are going to be the death of me.

Thanks.

JM

This language: "...throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;" is actually one of the clearer passages of the FED rulebook in that, as our former state clinician, Tim Stevens, put it once, it means exactly what it says.

This is nothing new. I'm surprised that, according to your report, Carl may differ in his interpretation. I don't have the 2007 BRD handy so I can't check his latest thoughts, but the interpretation that Bob and Tim Stevens have given has been the definitive one for as long as I can remember.

[UmpJM]

Garth,

I don't think anybody has the 2007 BRD handy (with the possible exception of Carl). I was referencing the 2005 edition with my previous cite. The quote from that edition (discussing a pitcher who turns past 1B on his way to 2B rather than directly addressing throwing to an "unoccupied base") is, in reference to FED,

"Of course, the runner must be moving, not merely bluffing a steal of second."

in order to NOT balk the move.

When I took the FED Part 1 test this year, I first took it "closed book" to see how I would do and what areas I most needed to further study. I got 2 questions wrong; both were questions where the FED rule is different than the OBR rule (#25 & #87).

When I first bothered to try to learn the actual rules, I learned the OBR rules (because the youth leagues i was coaching in used them as the "base" rules which addressed anything not specifically addressed in the league's rules).

Some of the FED differences make sense to me and some are are very surprising to me. I'm scheduled to work my first game covered under these rules this coming Tuesday (Freshmen). I'd like to know them as well as I'm able.

So, I am inclined to believe you regarding the proper FED interpretation (and Bob J., and Tim Stevens), but how the heck am I supposed to learn these things?

JM

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

Some of the FED differences make sense to me and some are are very surprising to me. I'm scheduled to work my first game covered under these rules this coming Tuesday (Freshmen). I'd like to know them as well as I'm able.

So, I am inclined to believe you regarding the proper FED interpretation (and Bob J., and Tim Stevens), but how the heck am I supposed to learn these things?

My advice is to "forget" everthing you know from an umpire's perspective about OBR. Then, re-read re-learn the FED rules form scratch. Then after yuo "know" FED and "know" OBR, you can compare the two to learn the differences.

For example, in the play at hand, if you learned FED rules first, you would have answered, "F1 can throw to second if R1 even feints an advance." I would have responded, 'In OBR, R1 must actually be advancing."

IMO, learning one then trying to memorize the 456 differences is not the way to go.

For your game on Tuesday, go to the FVB web-site and download my list of the 25 most important differences, IMO. Note however, that it hasn't been updated in a few years.

[Shmuelg]

It seems to me that it would be rather difficult for a pitcher to determine whether the runner is making a real effort to go to the next base, or making a feint. And even if he *is* making a feint, then at the very least the defense can get that runner in a run-down. This is the way I understand it, certainly with MLB 8.05d in mind.