For What It's Worth

[Bfair]

Here at eUmpire in the past there was a long and heated debate on whether "arm motion" is required by the Fed when a RH pitcher makes the 3-1 pickoff move. While Childress (who initiated the thread) stated it was required, some felt it was not. Those wishing to review this 75 post thread can do so at :

http://www.officialforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=1237

During the state Fed meeting in Texas on 1/19/02 Kyle McNeely put on a rules presentation regarding the Fed pitching rule. Kyle is used as a source of authoritative opinion in the BRD and is, I believe, an advisor to the NFHS rules committee.

After his presentation, I had opportunity to meet with Kyle to discuss whether arm motion is required by Fed. I asked Kyle:

In light of the OBR and NCAA not requiring arm motion on such a play, and that a legal step (to the plate or base) could constitute the start of a pitch or a pickoff (respectively), would arm motion be required under the Fed pitching rule on the 3-1 move? I highlighted that the Fed definition of a feint is simulating the start of a pitch or a throw, and that some therefore feel that arm motion is required to start such a feint.

Kyle advised that he felt "arm motion" would not be required, and that a legal step to the base indicates to the runner that the pitch is not occurring, and in fact, the pitcher may be throwing to the base he stepped to.

Since this was a private conversation with Kyle, myself, and one other present, I would urge Childress to obtain an official Fed ruling on this if he's not already done so. (I've not yet purchased his updated BRD to see if this has been done). If he has obtained a ruling, regarding this hotly debated issue, I've not seen that ruling stated on the boards.

For what it's worth, you may wish to consider this information versus Childress' opinion in the BRD that arm motion is required in the 3-1 move. The issue was not specifically addressed by the Fed, rather, it was Childress interpretation that this differed in Fed vs. all other rules (which specifically clarify that arm motion would not be required).

As for me, it supports that which I have stated all along. It is not balk if a Fed pitcher steps legally toward third, fails to make any arm motion there, and then makes a second, legal move toward first base.

I hope this will put this issue to rest for some.

Just my opinion,

Freix

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Bfair
Freix

Again, I've quoted the important part of Freix's post.

Here's what I have argued:

Exclude NCAA and OBR, which have black letter law or official interpretation that arm motion is not required during the 3-1 play.

FED says: "A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitcher or a throw to a base...."

I care not a whit the outcome of any "official interpretation" from the NFHS. I am not arguing whether arm motion is required to avoid deception; I never have. I only argue that the FED language does not support the concept of a feint without arm motion.

Simply put:

One cannot THROW with one's foot. Agreed?

Therefore, one cannot SIMULATE A THROW with one's foot.

Change the language.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

FED says: "A feint is a movement which simulates the start of a pitcher or a throw to a base...."

I care not a whit the outcome of any "official interpretation" from the NFHS. I am not arguing whether arm motion is required to avoid deception; I never have. I only argue that the FED language does not support the concept of a feint without arm motion.

Simply put:

One cannot THROW with one's foot. Agreed?

Therefore, one cannot SIMULATE A THROW with one's foot.

Change the language.

Lah me, Childress. The problem is not a need to change the language, but rather YOUR NEED to read and understand the language that is already there (which you have shown).

We all know you do not throw with your foot, yet a step with a foot can be "the start of a pitch or throw to a base." In fact, the step of the foot to the plate is a factor in considering the time of the pitch, correct? And although that same logic was discussed in the initial thread, you failed to accept it.

While you attempt to hide your error in your twisting of words, I recommend for all to review the original thread which initiated this topic and note not only the baseball content discussed, but the personal attack and inuendo initiated by Childress with those who disagreed with him.

Now that your inaccuracy in reading the words printed in the rules has been highlighted, you may wish to go back and re-read the rule related to the award of bases in thread regarding the Fed 2002 Casebook. You will see that the Fed states the runner "who is returning"............

As it is written, it makes the award dependent upon the runner's actions. If you live by your eTeamz post, you should not add your own intent by changing those words to "a runner who is required to return"...........

Instead, why not use your contacts to ask the Fed what they mean, instead of posting to the contrary without any other support. You may be opening yourself up to yet even another missed interpretation. As for myself, I am merely abiding by what the existing words state. I feel that appropriate until such time as the Fed changes their wording or elects to rule differently through caseplay or ruling.

Just my opinion,

Freix