1st to 3rd PO MOVE

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

1. If they are playing under FED rules,
2. And the pitcher remains "engaged" as he feints to 3rd then turns to 1st,
3. Then he MUST make a "legal step" AND throw on the move to 1st,
4. So, at some point, he's going to have take the ball out of his glove - and he'd best do it "continuously" and "without interruption".

Around here, no matter what the feet actually do, once he steps toward 3B he is off the rubber and disengaged.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

While that does have a certain appeal to me, personally, I can't help but wonder what you would call should the pitcher...

... with runners on first and third, ... while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, ...

and successfully picks off the R1.

Me, in an OBR or NCAA game, I would balk that in a New York minute.

In a FED game, it's explicitly legal (though I have no idea why they thought this would be a good rule).

So, if the F1 is given this "innovative" advantage, I would also hold him to the FED "constraint" should he make the same move, but fail to throw - a balk.

JM

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Michael,

While that does have a certain appeal to me, personally, I can't help but wonder what you would call should the pitcher...



and successfully picks off the R1.

Me, in an OBR or NCAA game, I would balk that in a New York minute.

In a FED game, it's explicitly legal (though I have no idea why they thought this would be a good rule).

So, if the F1 is given this "innovative" advantage, I would also hold him to the FED "constraint" should he make the same move, but fail to throw - a balk.

JM

The "expected" call here is to no-call this under any code.

I actually think this is in the spirit of the rule. I don't see that F1 gets any advantage from the FED rule. An R1 who sees F1 move toward 3B and doesn't get back to 1B, IMO, richly deserves whatever he gets.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

I doubt that we would enforce it differently if we saw the same thing.

But I actually believe the language I quote from the text of the OBR rules describing a pitcher's illegal move does mean something.

And, were you to use your imagination, I'm guessing you could picture a move where the pitcher does a "double step" off of his pivot foot - not a "normal" 3rd to 1st move, mind you - that you would deem violating both the letter and the spirit of the balk proscriptions as well.

Go ahead. Wherever you are - your family room, some near-campus bar trying to pick up coeds, the library, whatever - just try it.

Almost like a preliminary "jab step" towards 3B, only with the free foot instead of the pivot. Just enough to gain "distance and direction" in the direction of 3B with the free foot, but not enough to compromise your balance nor the leverage of your pivot foot as you then quickly "wheel" to 1B to pick off the runner there.

As the famous umpire Thomas Stearns Eliot once sagely observed,

...

Words strain,
Crack and sometimes break, under the burden,
Under the tension, slip, slide, perish,
Decay with imprecision, ...

so I may not be conveying what I'm envisioning in a way that creates the same picture in your mind. But, if you believe what I'm picturing is legal, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Because, of course, I'm right and you're wrong.

JM

[JFlores]

Sorry I am an idiot, meant third to first move. I would've edited the thread title but don't know how.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Michael,

I doubt that we would enforce it differently if we saw the same thing.

But I actually believe the language I quote from the text of the OBR rules describing a pitcher's illegal move does mean something.

And, were you to use your imagination, I'm guessing you could picture a move where the pitcher does a "double step" off of his pivot foot - not a "normal" 3rd to 1st move, mind you - that you would deem violating both the letter and the spirit of the balk proscriptions as well.

Go ahead. Wherever you are - your family room, some near-campus bar trying to pick up coeds, the library, whatever - just try it.

Almost like a preliminary "jab step" towards 3B, only with the free foot instead of the pivot. Just enough to gain "distance and direction" in the direction of 3B with the free foot, but not enough to compromise your balance nor the leverage of your pivot foot as you then quickly "wheel" to 1B to pick off the runner there.

As the famous umpire Thomas Stearns Eliot once sagely observed,



so I may not be conveying what I'm envisioning in a way that creates the same picture in your mind. But, if you believe what I'm picturing is legal, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Because, of course, I'm right and you're wrong.

JM

Bravo, maestro! Pure artistry, that post.

[UmpJM]

Michael,

Why, thank you.

To be fair, we here in Illinois generally consider his foot to have come off the rubber on the move to 3rd as well.

JM

[Simply The Best]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

To be fair, we here in Illinois generally consider his foot to have come off the rubber on the move to 3rd as well.

Why not call it properly? If the foot is engaged - balk. If not, no balk.