Throwing to an unoccupied base!

[VaCoach]

The rule says a pitcher "may throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to put out an advancing runner." Here is my question and if there is a rule covering this situation, please include it in your response.
Runners are in first and second, two outs, 3 balls and 2 strikes count on the batter. On the pitch the runners are running to third and second, can the right handed pitcher begin his pitching motion from the stretch, after raising his left foot and looking home, then step straight towards third base and throw to third in an attempt to put out the runner on second who has started to run as he lifts his front foot? If this is a legal move, why have I never seen it, especially at the high school level?

[UmpJM]

VaCoach,

If done properly, the move you describe is legal. The pitcher must remain in motion and must land his step more towards 3B than to home. He also cannot break the back plane of the rubber with his free foot. If the R2 only feints to 3B (in the umpire's sole judgement), the F1 will have balked.

As to why you've never seen it, that I can't answer. Maybe the coaches don't know it's legal. You quoted the (most relevant) rule.

JM

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by VaCoach

The rule says a pitcher "may throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to put out an advancing runner." Here is my question and if there is a rule covering this situation, please include it in your response.
Runners are in first and second, two outs, 3 balls and 2 strikes count on the batter. On the pitch the runners are running to third and second, can the right handed pitcher begin his pitching motion from the stretch, after raising his left foot and looking home, then step straight towards third base and throw to third in an attempt to put out the runner on second who has started to run as he lifts his front foot? If this is a legal move, why have I never seen it, especially at the high school level?

As long as he didn't make any movements that would commit him to pitch, like swinging his free foot past the rubber or leaning towards home, then the move sounds legal. Head position means nothing. The step to third has to gain distance and direction.

hope this helps

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

VaCoach,

If done properly, the move you describe is legal. The pitcher must remain in motion and must land his step more towards 3B than to home. He also cannot break the back plane of the rubber with his free foot. If the R2 only feints to 3B (in the umpire's sole judgement), the F1 will have balked.

As to why you've never seen it, that I can't answer. Maybe the coaches don't know it's legal. You quoted the (most relevant) rule.

JM

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.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by VaCoach

If this is a legal move, why have I never seen it, especially at the high school level?

I don't see it in my area because coaches are smart enough to remind the runners "Make sure he's going home." The runners don't break for the next base until the pitcher commits to pitch.

[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.

[PeteBooth]

can the right handed pitcher begin his pitching motion from the stretch, after raising his left foot and looking home, then step straight towards third base and throw to third in an attempt to put out the runner on second who has started to run as he lifts his front foot? If this is a legal move, why have I never seen it, especially at the high school level?

[/QUOTE]

You have not seen it because it is a very difficult move.

In addition to what others have said, the aforementioned move MUST be done in ONE continuous motion. The problem with this type of move is that inexperienced F1's have a tendency to "hang" their free foot as to freeze the runners and then throw home or pick them off. In other words a "break" in their motion as opposed to ONE Continuous motion.

Pete Booth

[Don Mueller]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

You have not seen it because it is a very difficult move.

In addition to what others have said, the aforementioned move MUST be done in ONE continuous motion. The problem with this type of move is that inexperienced F1's have a tendency to "hang" their free foot as to freeze the runners and then throw home or pick them off. In other words a "break" in their motion as opposed to ONE Continuous motion.

Pete Booth

There may be many reasons you haven't seen it, but difficulty of move is rather low on the list, IMO.
It's the same exact move lefties make to first and the only difficulty they have is self imposed when they try to get too cute.