I know the move Garth is talking about. He's right.

Right-handers can begin their motion toward first without leading with their free foot. In fact, they actually pivot on their front foot and the trail foot simply follows along as a follow through. Very quick. Very deceptive. Very illegal.

It looks like a quick, pirouette.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

1. What I wrote was a balk move. He responded directly to it and quoted it. And then accused me of calling it wrong.

2. It was not a "change" in any play. It was a "different" play that I wrote about in response to a post claiming no one could "fling" a ball to first while in contact with the rubber, without stepping. I have seen it done and I have properly called the balk.

3. Mark, unfortunately, was unable to admit to an error. But that's okay, I know a bunch of umpires who can't admit to making a mistake.

4. As regards to the earlier play that I described in which the pitcher straddles the rubber, leans in for signals and flings the ball to first, I understand that verbatim wording in FED does not specifically list that as a balk. My position has been that it is incredibly deceptive and should be a balk. I am enouraged that two FED clinicians have agreed and said they will bring it before the rules committee for discussion. That said, I have not called it as a balk and will not until told otherwise.

Violates step n throw. It is a move that must be initiated by the explosive rotation at the hip

There is no way that you can define "appearance".

Sure there is! If, in the umpire's judgment, the pitcher paused long enough (as if to get signs from the catcher), he satisfies the requirement.

In other words, the pitcher steps on the rubber, faces his catcher, then delivers the pitch. Fine!

After all, how do you define a "quick pitch?"

What is too quick? How can you categorically determine that the batter is NOT ready? These are all judgment calls.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Originally Posted by fitump56
There is no way that you can define "appearance".


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Congrats, David, you have well defined the term "appearance" but incorrectly applied it, imo. We have no way of knowing what the true signals are, where they come from, etc. But we do have the judgment that if a pitcher makes certain time and trued movements that we can subjectively call this a "taking signs". As you know, savvy coaches in MFS teach not to "peer" in or bend over, this allows for levels of uncertainty in making the "appearance" decision. :)

As the level of ball increases in both ability and intelligent play, it can become very problematic to rely on "appearance", best not to rely on anything then. Happily, better plyers don't play with such foolish intentions, eh?

"Quick pitching" has never been a difficult call ime. F1's need to respect that Bs have certain leisures in preparing to hit, Ps have certain rythyms, all must dance together. If this rythym is purposefully violated, and in upper levels of ball it isn't often, then we have a QP.

They are but not difficult ones. It comes out of the flow of the game, you know this, it is a feel for things. I have never had problems with QPitching, the rythym of the F1-B is natural to ballplayers.

F1s with intellect know that upsetting that rythym is plain dumb. That is because ex-ballplaying umpires call B-Ss using the same rythyms, don't we? :)