Balk, Protest, Balk, EJ

[bobbybanaduck]

Originally Posted by umpjim

The "wheel' in the first sit means the pitcher did not break contact with the rubber in the step to 3B. No arm motion is required but if he did "wheel" and did not break contact from the rubber with the pivot foot it would be a balk. Usually the pitcher breaks contact in the step to 3B and there is no balk to 1B.

lemme shed a little JEA knowledge of "in practically the same motion." this has EVERYTHING to do with the pitcher's LEFT foot. if he steps toward third (as stated above no arm motion is required) and then spins on his left foot and throws to 1B, then that is considered all in the same motion and is a balk. if his left foot gains distance and direction to 3B, lands, then comes up off the ground again while he is turning to make the throw to 1B, then it's no longer considered in the same motion, and is not a balk.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by bobbybanaduck

the pitcher does not have to break contact with the rubber with his right foot, provided he at some point throws the ball somewhere. if he doesn't throw anywhere, then he has to completely disengage at some point or it would be a balk.

Not true in OBR. A step to third followed by a step to first, all with the pivot foot staying on the rubber is a balk in OBR. It's legal under FED.

lemme shed a little JEA knowledge of "in practically the same motion." this has EVERYTHING to do with the pitcher's LEFT foot. if he steps toward third (as stated above no arm motion is required) and then spins on his left foot and throws to 1B, then that is considered all in the same motion and is a balk. if his left foot gains distance and direction to 3B, lands, then comes up off the ground again while he is turning to make the throw to 1B, then it's no longer considered in the same motion, and is not a balk.

That's my understanding. It's the same (excpet "more egregious") as stepping to theplate and throwing to first.

[bobbybanaduck]

whoops. sorry bout that, and thanks for catchin it bob. removed it from my post. should have stood up and acted it out before just posting it. not only do i know that rule, but i actually called it in a AA game a couple years ago. they didn't like it.

[cbfoulds]

Originally Posted by njdevs00cup

I agree that they may not have been balks, but this does not sound like grounds for a protest.

Uh: wrong on the Rule? Sounds like EXACTLY grounds for a protest.

[cbfoulds]

Tuss:
Sitch 1 - maybe a balk, if, by "all in one motion" you mean no step with the free foot toward 1st after the step toward 3d. But the absence of arm motion ain't a balk.

Sitch 2 - only a balk if his FEET were in the "set" position. If both feet were on or behind the rubber, he was in "Windup" position, and what you described is not a balk.

[umpjim]

Thanks for clearing that "wheel" up Bobby. I need to take my own advice and do some more reading. JEA comes to mind. Once you act that move out you see what they mean. Basically, even though there was a step to 3B and the pivot foot may have left the rubber, the pivot foot doesn't land before the pitcher wheels and throws to 1B. Correct me if I'm wrong. I was told in an Evans clinic that a step to a base with the pivot foot coming off the rubber is a legal disengage. Thus, the pitcher could now run at the runner for example. But I think there is more to it in this sit. I think the pivot foot has to land off the rubber first to have the disengage. Thus the "wheel" is a no direct step to 1B balk.
I haven't seen this yet but now I'm ready for it.

CB, I don't think the pitcher has to step to 1B if he landed his pivot foot off the rubber in the step to 3B. He has now legally disengaged. That's why he can feint at that point. I can't imagine the move without a step but I don't think it is a balk unless it fits the "wheel' move.

CB, OBR no longer cares where your feet are in the windup or set except for sure the free foot in the set has to be in front of the line that defines the front of the rubber. But the pitcher could have exactly the same foot position for his windup. Again, I reference J P Howell and his "windup from the stretch" in last years World Series.

[cbfoulds]

umpjim:
Sitch 1: I think we are in agreement. Only "3d to 1st" balk that has ever happened in a game I was in was a "wheel" where, still in contact after the step to 3d, F1 turned his body [feet still "stepping" toward 3d] and threw to 1st - balked for no step to 1st.

Sitch 2: right you are - I seem to be speaking FED in an OBR sitch.
Although, I do wonder how in the world, under current definitions, one can distiguish between Windup and Set in order to, for instance, call a no-stop [from the Set] balk. Wouldn't that [the no-stop] be indistinguishable from a Windup beginning with the feet in the same position?

[tballump]

Originally Posted by umpjim

If you watched the 2008 World Series you would have seen Tampa Bay pitcher JP Howell pitch the windup and set from the same foot position.

Come on uj----What does Howell do different in the stretch vs windup so that the MLBU know which position he is in? I cannot believe the MLBU just let him go either way without some type of discernable difference even if the foot position can be the same.

Tuss

Your first scenario sounds like telling the manager on a left handed move that the pitchers free foot passed the front edge (only) of the rubber and that his step was towards the plate rather than first. In other words, you found 2 things wrong with his move even though you were possibly only correct on the one part (you lucky dog you).
Even if you were possibly wrong (possibly---HTBT) on the first part of your first balk, you were dead right on the second part of your first balk, and therefore the protest should not be allowed. The TD or League president or whatever they are called where you are, always has at his disposal that little section in the book (or I think it used to be there and therefor I cannot quote it precisely), that the protest should be denied (even if wrong) for any ruling that does not materially affect the outcome of the game. I am sure this allows a quite liberal interpretation to be used, (and what is liberal to one TD may not be liberal to another TD), if the TD needs an (out) in these situations.

Your 2nd balk seems like a HTBT situation. I am waiting to hear what uj says about a discernable difference since he is usually on top of things. However, if there was no difference to distinguish either move and it looked like it was used to deceive, it would seem like you were correct, but once again this might be one of those HTBT and even if all the good balk umps on this board were there and voted on the move, the vote could come out 50/50 or whatever anyway.

[umpjim]

I can't remember what he does and haven't seen him (or much other MLB baseball yet) this year. But there were subtle differences that you could tell what he was going to do. But what does it matter? He could pick from either the windup or set so the runner just has to react to what happens next. Usually the free foot direction of motion is toward the rubber if they come set and it is toward 1B (righty) or 3B (lefty) if they are winding up.