Iiitbtsb

[justanotherblue]

Originally Posted by Paul L

To which the Tim C. corollary is that if the balk is based on the failure to step towards second, then it is not a balk "to" second.

And with that, I can finally agree, you can't balk to second. Because he stepped toward third, instead of second.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by justanotherblue

And with that, I can finally agree, you can't balk to second. Because he stepped toward third, instead of second.

I can't resist trying to come up with one.

What about when the pitcher spins around and steps toward second, feints to second, and 2nd base is unoccupied and R1 not even moving. The balk advances R1 to 2nd. Is this a balk to 2nd base?

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

I can't resist trying to come up with one.

What about when the pitcher spins around and steps toward second, feints to second, and 2nd base is unoccupied and R1 not even moving. The balk advances R1 to 2nd. Is this a balk to 2nd base?

Well... one school of thought is: No, it is a balk for, among other things, failing to deliver the pitch after beginning the delivery. [Here it gets kinda circular - F1 wasn't engaged in a pick-off or play, 'cause R1 wasn't moving, so what he did MUST have been begin a delivery ....] So the accepted formulation [to avoid being labeled a stubborn, pendantic SOB] is
IIITBT[occupied]SB. "Liberals" add II[almost]ITBT[occupied]SB, because somewhere, someone will immagine some off-the-wall TWP, which can only happen on a Thursday with the moon full and the SS distracted by wiping the fireants off his Jawbreaker.......... you know.

[bossman72]

Tee can mess around with the semantics pretty well to defend his IIITBTSB stronghold. Just try. You will fail. haha!