Learned 2 New Things Last Night

[bobbybanaduck]

what you are missing is that this comment is not meant to supercede the rest of the rule. you can't take a rule comment and read it like it is a rule. the comment you cite is at the end of the rule to add emphasis to the rest of the rule. comment (b) refers to 8.05d and is extra information. you have to read 8.05d first (which says he can't throw to an unoccupied base unless it's for the purpose of making a play) then move on to comment (b) which tells you that he can turn and throw to second without interruption (and now you have to think back to the other part and know that he can only do this if it is for the purpose of making a play.) confused yet?

[MarionTiger]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

what you are missing is that this comment is not meant to supercede the rest of the rule. you can't take a rule comment and read it like it is a rule. the comment you cite is at the end of the rule to add emphasis to the rest of the rule. comment (b) refers to 8.05d and is extra information. you have to read 8.05d first (which says he can't throw to an unoccupied base unless it's for the purpose of making a play) then move on to comment (b) which tells you that he can turn and throw to second without interruption (and now you have to think back to the other part and know that he can only do this if it is for the purpose of making a play.) confused yet?

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b), if not to quantify the previous rule (since it is at the bottom of 8.05)? is comment 8.05(b) not similar to an amendment to 8.05d? You are right, I am confused. To me, it clearly states that for this purpose, 2nd is not considered unoccupied. If it is not considered unoccupied, then 8.05d does not apply by definition, right?

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by MarionTiger

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b), if not to quantify the previous rule (since it is at the bottom of 8.05)? is comment 8.05(b) not similar to an amendment to 8.05d? You are right, I am confused. To me, it clearly states that for this purpose, 2nd is not considered unoccupied. If it is not considered unoccupied, then 8.05d does not apply by definition, right?

it is unoccupied, but, F1 is allowed to throw there (even though it is unoccupied) if it is for the purpose of making a play. the comment is saying that, if he is making a play, then he can turn and throw as long as said turn is uninterrupted. the entire rule has to be taken into consideration in order for any of it to make any sense. what, specifically, are you trying to figure out?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

it is unoccupied, but, F1 is allowed to throw there (even though it is unoccupied) if it is for the purpose of making a play. the comment is saying that, if he is making a play, then he can turn and throw as long as said turn is uninterrupted. the entire rule has to be taken into consideration in order for any of it to make any sense. what, specifically, are you trying to figure out?

Right: the point of (b) is to emphasize that F1 cannot start to throw to 1B, see that the runner has taken off, and then throw to 2B to get him. That would be a balk.

If he is throwing to 2B to make a play on an advancing runner, he must step and throw directly to 2B without interruption. This clause does not contravene any other provision of the balk rule.

[MarionTiger]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Right: the point of (b) is to emphasize that F1 cannot start to throw to 1B, see that the runner has taken off, and then throw to 2B to get him. That would be a balk.

If he is throwing to 2B to make a play on an advancing runner, he must step and throw directly to 2B without interruption. This clause does not contravene any other provision of the balk rule.

I ask because a balk was called in this situation. With a runner just on first, the pitcher lifted his front leg normally to pitch, but turned and went to 2nd. The umpire called a balk, and the coach tried to site this particular comment. I can't see where the coach is incorrect. I'm assuming there is something that clarifies this further somewhere, because it sure seems it would happen more if it wasn't a balk.

After the game, the UIC commented that it was a judgement call pending if the runner was actually going to second or not. I do not see where that comes into play. I understand the point he was making, I just don't see anything in the ruling referring to judgement on the runner.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MarionTiger

After the game, the UIC commented that it was a judgement call pending if the runner was actually going to second or not. I do not see where that comes into play. I understand the point he was making, I just don't see anything in the ruling referring to judgement on the runner.

The umpire is correct (at least as I view the play in my mind's eye). The rule says that F1 can't throw to an unoccuupied base except for the purpose of making a play. It's clarified in PBUC and MLBUM that "making a play" is umpire judgment, and that judgment is based on whether R1 is attempting to advance (it's a play -- thus legal) or feinting an advance (it's not a play -- thus a balk).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The umpire is correct (at least as I view the play in my mind's eye). The rule says that F1 can't throw to an unoccuupied base except for the purpose of making a play. It's clarified in PBUC and MLBUM that "making a play" is umpire judgment, and that judgment is based on whether R1 is attempting to advance (it's a play -- thus legal) or feinting an advance (it's not a play -- thus a balk).

The one thing that's not specifically mentioned is what happens if F1 decides not to throw at all. I assume that we'd treat it just like any other feint to 2B situation (he doesn't have to throw, but can) but the rule does say "throw."

[MarionTiger]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The umpire is correct (at least as I view the play in my mind's eye). The rule says that F1 can't throw to an unoccuupied base except for the purpose of making a play. It's clarified in PBUC and MLBUM that "making a play" is umpire judgment, and that judgment is based on whether R1 is attempting to advance (it's a play -- thus legal) or feinting an advance (it's not a play -- thus a balk).

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by MarionTiger

then what is the purpose of comment 8.05(b),

Without the comment, too many players, coaches and umpires would have teh "outside move" (counterclockwise) by a RH pitcher to second as a balk because the pitcher first turned "toward first" -- even though he didn't make any other motion to first.