Two simple questions.

[ManInBlue]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

(Note that I'm NOT saying that I agree with these decisions, just explaining what I think is FED's rationale.)

1) There shouldn't be any difference between what's legal and not depending on whether runners are on base.

2) No idea, but I don't think it makes a practical difference.

3) To reduce umpire and coach / player confusion

4) To stop coaches from pretending to windup and then picking off a runner. Too many umpires wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the start of a pitch and the motion to throw to a base.

(Many of the differences are an attempt to develop the rules for the lowest-common-denominator of umpire and coach.)

And, for Mr. Tyler -- czechvar is a beer.

I have to disagree with #4. Start of a pitch would be stepping back with the free foot. Stepping back with the pivot foot and then going through the wind up gets you a balk, as would starting the wind up then throwing to a base. That's either a motion that resembles the start of a pitch or it is the motion starting the pitch. The situation in quesiton would simply be a step toward a base with the free foot. The balk would prevent them from pretending to start a pitch and then throwing to a base.

What's there that would confuse an umpire? If a pitcher is in the windup position and steps off with his free foot we don't get confused. Same thing in my book.