Learned 2 New Things Last Night

[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."

[RPatrino]

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

[Rich]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

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

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

[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.

[RPatrino]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[MarionTiger]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by MarionTiger

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."

Not quite right. Following my logic it's like saying: "you cannot throw to an unoccupied base with one exception, and for the exception, here's how you have to do it."