Rich, is it ok to fake throw to an 'unoccupied' base?

I guess it comes down to semantics or logic, or what have you.. The rule states:

Rule 8.05
81
(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;

However,(and after 8.05d) comment 8.05 b says

(b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.

So if by definition, if this is "not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base", then 2nd is not considered "unoccupied". If it is not considered "unoccupied", then 8.05 (d) does not apply.

Marion, you are correct IF the runner is actually advancing to 2b.

To reiterate, in FED a 'feint' is considered an advance in this situation, so no balk is called. In OBR (all baseball outside of FEDlandia) if the runner feints and goes back to 1b, then you don't have a play at 2b. That is a balk.

With R1 only, 2B is unoccupied. F1 can throw to 2B only to make a play by 8.05(d). This concerns WHETHER F1 may throw to an unoccupied base.

8.05(b) concerns HOW F1 may throw to an unoccupied base, not WHETHER he may do so. He must do so with a complete turn, without hesitation toward 1B.

The rules do not conflict because they concern different questions.

No, it's not, but that doesn't answer the question. I've posed this question to a few very good HS/college umpires and all think this is no balk because he's allowed to throw to second for the purpose of making a play. OTOH, I point out that this is a specific exception and that it's (like you've said) a balk when one throws to an unoccupied base.

The retort is that "the fielder is never required to throw to second."

So that's where it sits.

As a retort, that makes no sense, since the issue is whether F1 is prohibited from throwing to 2B, not whether he's required to do so. Claiming that he's not required to do so can't show that he's not prohibited from doing so.

I didn't say it. I also think it's ridiculous.

BTW, I balked this during the game, which spurred the discussion. It didn't matter since it was R1 only and he advanced to second on the feint anyway.

OK, from your post I couldn't tell whether that was your retort. Glad it wasn't. ;)

OK - trying to clarify this rule.

YES - I am a 11 year old coach - we get this situation a lot.

R1 and R3. Lots of times the R1 will take off when our pitcher raises his leg trying to draw the throw so the R3 can score when we throw to 2B to get the out.

I understand that our pitcher can spin toward 2B (continuous motion and no movement toward the plate) and throw to 2B. This is an attempt to make the play on the runner.

Is this a balk?

What if the R1 stops and goes back toward 1B?

A R3 should not make any difference - correct?

In youth legue baseball many coaches don't teach the fact that a pitcher has to make a movement toward home before they should try and steal. Often, (with RHP) - they steal on first movement of pitcher. We should be able to just spin and throw toward 2B - correct?

aren't you a little young to be coaching?

I have run across coaches who were childish.

Around here, they only let the 11 year olds be ASSISTANT coaches.

And that's only because it brings a certain level of maturity and decorum to the games.

JM

I think that if you are going to throw the ball to an unoccupied base for purpose of making a play on an advancing runner then you must throw, not fake, and hope umpire agrees that there was an advancing runner.

Not a balk becasue, as you said, it's an attempt to make a play on the runner.

As long as he was making a legitimate attempt to advance and not feinting an advance (the distinction is umpire judgment), then it's still legal.

Correct.

Also correct.

How, you say...
 

MByron, that's what another official friend of mine said, that the rule is referencing that the RHP has to turn counterclockwise without hesitation to first to throw to 2nd. It doesn't say specifically that you cannot turn the other way, but I can see the inference, yet it sure isn't much. I've talked to half a dozen officials, not including this forum, and gotten at least 4 variances on an answer. To me that means it is at least a little unclear.

However, following your logic, it's like saying, "you cannot throw to an unoccupied base, but when you do, here's how you have to do it." So then it comes down "to make a play". I guess that's another discussion.

Thanks to all of you for your input.