Interesting Questions:
 

I ran into these questions recently, and your opinions are of course welcome. Pleas note I also posted the questions here: Judgment Questions: - Forums

Thanks for your responses.

Two fairly interesting questions have been brought to my attention recently, I thought I might pass them on for comments:

A. FED question. F1 is in set position, but his pivot foot is not entirely in front of the rubber. Picture it as about a 40* angle, with part in front of the plate, part on top of the rubber. Balk it? Related, Q, can a pitcher stand on top of the rubber (no) in set position, or can he wedge his foot against the front of of the rubber at an angle to the rubber?

My first thought is nope, on all three, since FED 6-1-3 say all of pivot foot "in contact with or directly in front of the pitcher's plate." But the reading here is not quite exact enough in others' opinion.

B. NCAA/OBR: R2, outs don't matter. F1 breaks hands to come home. After hands are broken BR asks for time, but does not step out or make a physical gesture for time. Umpire says "too late". F1 stops, real late in delivery. PU balks F1, saying that BU did nothing to force F1 to stop his motion. F1's pitching coach disagrees. F1 lucky he still has an arm to throw with.

Obviously, the first thought of most guys is to call time and start over. But under what circumstances, if any, does speaking by BR not become a balk?

The rule reads "entire pivot foot in contact with or directly in front"

I would say don't pick boogers .

If one is standing with there entire foot on top of the pitching plate then????????????????? I believe he complies with the rule. If there is some type of reasonalble contact, move on and look for something else. Pitchers get a better push off the edge. And sometimes they have no choice because of the giant hole that is there because the field is not maintained. If your going to be picky about exact contact under field conditions like that, then bring your rake and shovel to the nex game. Common sense should prevail here.

A good umpire never say "too late". He either calls time or doesn't. He also does not let this happen. If the batter speaks to the umpire he is not causing a balk however, if his actions confuse the pitcher (your decision to make ), then he should not be calling a balk. If you deem that the batter is intentionally trying to cause a balk then throw him out. The main thing here is that the umpire has to control the situation to the point that it is obvious that the batter or pithcher have commited a violation of the rules on there own and not as a result of the other player. Be reasonalble in your judgement here because yet fast to reacte or be ready to throw out one coach or the other because, you were passive in your decision.

A. If your foot is on top of the rubber you are in contact with it.

B. The offense did nothing to cause the pitcher to stop, Balk. If he steped out or was more vocal then I would have nothing.

A. F1 is within the rule.

B. If I was dumb enough to have that conversation with the batter, I would rule that F1 was effected by the conversation and start from scratch.

I concur with you on both points.

I agree with those above, you can't be very picky about the pitching rubber since most of them have a big hole in front of them anyway.

On the second play, PU has to make a decision. Either you have time or you don't. If in doubt, I'm going to give the players the benefit of the doubt and call time.

No sense causing problems over something that can be fixed. I have players often raise a hand. I give them time, but I also tell them ask verbally. If nothing else a little education because sooner or later an umpire is going to refuse to give them time and they can say they were warned.

Thanks
David

A. Agreed. In contact is fine. Look to see if this was done differently than all his other sets.

B. Rule book allows you to "no harm, no foul" if you feel the batters or offense action caused it. If you feel it was done intentionally, you do have grounds for ejection but I would warn first.

These are just my interp of the book(s). I hate writing ejection reports and almost no matter how you handle the second sit, it is going to raise some concern. A "do over" followed by a warning will take care of this.

Just my dos pesos.

Klokard,

What possible difference would that make?

Answer: NONE!

JM

Coach,
In the sit that was offered, I mentioned that if it was done differently as an example of the F1 trying to gain an advantage. The Fed book and NCAA book mention the non-pivot foot needing to be in line with or behind the front plane of the rubber (in the wind-up position.) If the F1 begins the game with his foot in a slightly ahead position, I am not going to pick a booger and call a ball (as directed.) Now, if he changes his position during the advance of the game TO GAIN AN ADVANTAGE, I may go get a ball or balk as the sit dictates. That was my meaning by if he changes his delivery or set. May not be book, but I don't like to pick boogers if not needed. Your thoughts?

I mention this because I have seen already many Fed and College pitchers using this windup mechanic.

Per Fed rule, if the pitcher starts with his non-pivot foot entirely in front of the pivot foot, he is bound by the rules of the set which includes a complete and discernable stop prior to delivering to the plate. Are you going to ball him if this is his NORMAL wind-up position?

Yep.