Feinting to First
 

is there any situation in which a pitcher (without disengaging the plate) can feint to first and it not be a balk (with runners on)?

There are exactly zero instances where a pitcher can feign to first while in contact with the rubber.

He cannot feign. He can faint (assuming he keeps his feet on the rubber). Not sure what feinting is.

'Feint' is the correct spelling, Mike, and as you know by rule F1 may not do it toward occupied 1B without disengaging.

In summary, ........................

NO

Feign and Feint are both in my Websters and you guys know what he means so not sure why the ticky tack. I don't think I would call a balk for a faint, regardless.

DG,

Concur.

I had "TIME" as soon as I saw him starting to faint - which was before anyone else noticed.

Concur on the "feign and feint" as well.

JM

I think if a pitcher faints at all while on the rubber and runners on base, we're getting a balk. And a new pitcher.

Only when the ball wasn't in play, and never when he faints.

Now that would be a neat trick.

Dash, if it happened, would you balk him for starting and stopping? I guess if the ball fell out of his glove and didn't cross the foul line, that would work, too.

I'm not letting him play the rest of the game if he does that. Doctors note or not.;)

Failed attempt at humor. My bad!

Failed attempt? Or feigned attempt? ;)

=====
MLB RULEBOOK

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

(b) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first base and fails to complete the throw;

=====

=====

MLB RULEBOOK

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball;

=====

You can not drop the ball while you are on the mound. The foul line has nothing to do with this rule.

Yes it does - if you read the interpretations you will find that if it crosses the foul line it's ruled a ball, not a balk.

That interpretation is specifically cited when the ball is dropped during a pitch, not a throw to first. And, if I recall, since I don't have my book with me, JEA makes a distinction between the two.

Actually the MLBUM says if a pitched ball slips .. .

So Andy Pettitte starts his delivery from set and drops the ball. Given his "move" how do you distinguish whether it was a pitch or not?

Or a pitcher does a "swing back" toward 2B, from which he can either pitch or go to 2B, and drops the ball - how do you distinguish?

Ball hits the ground and rolls obver the line - ball.

That;s my story and I'm sticking to it.

If he drops the ball while he is on the rubber it is a balk.

That's okay. I understand you and many others feel that way. I'm just saying that the interps you referred to do not back you up. They specifically mention a "pitched" ball, not a ball dropped when the pitcher is not in the process of delivering a pitch.

YouTube - Pitching from the Stretch Basics

1:16

Youtube - Balk Rules

1:19

youtube isn't exactly the prime source for this.

Try getting the Evans balk video from his web site.

I will use another rule citation then.

=====

MLB RULE 8.01

(d) If the pitcher makes an illegal pitch with the bases unoccupied, it shall be called a ball unless the batter reaches first base on a hit, an error, a base on balls, a hit batter or otherwise.

Rule 8.01(d) Comment: A ball which slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base.

=====

Coach read 801d comment again slowly this time.....

Rule 8.01(d) Comment: A ball which slips out of a pitcher’s hand and crosses the foul line shall be called a ball; otherwise it will be called no pitch. This would be a balk with men on base.

So, if a dropped ball doesn't cross the line, it's a balk, with runners on. If it crosses the line, it's a ball. Can't make it any clearer than that. That said, chances are if a pitcher drops the ball while on the rubber it's not going to cross the foul lines. Therefore you'll have your balk.

The second sentence is classifying "both" of the scenerios listed in the first sentence (The ball and no pitch). Instead of it being called a no pitch if it doesn't cross the line it is called a balk.

Let me try this one more time. The second ISN'T classifying "both". It's telling you that a ball that slips out of a pitcher's hand and crosses the foul line is a ball, not a balk. It is also telling you that a pitch/slip out of a pitchers hand with no runners on base is a no pitch, should it not cross a foul line. The last portion is telling you that if the ball doesn't cross the foul lines and there are runners on base, it's a balk. Just as Rich and other's have tried to tell you. But were just umpires here, not coaches, so also check out the MLBUM, JEA, Jaksa/Roder as well as BRD, all cover this particular play. Because to fully comprehend the rules of baseball, you need to reference the above mentioned manuals, in order to be a competent umpire and or understand the rules of baseball.

This is a grammatical error in the rules. With runners on, if the dropped ball crosses the foul line, it is a ball, not a balk. Otherwise, it's a balk. With no runners, it is a ball if it crosses the foul line, and No Pitch if it doesn't. That's the rule.

Jim Evans has identified over 235 errors in the rulebook, and not all of them have been fixed yet.

So this rule has nothing to do with it?

=====

MLB RULEBOOK

8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—

(k) The pitcher, while touching his plate, accidentally or intentionally drops the ball;

=====

If you can produce one single piece of documented evidence of a dropped, not thrown, ball rolling into foul territory from the pitching rubber, I will continue this ridiculous discussion. Perhaps the rule needs to be rewritten so it matches 8.01(d), the other poorly worded rule.

As was stated, we don't just go by the rule book for decisions. This is at all levels of baseball, including professional. We as umpires use all the alphabet soup-named manuals that were already mentioned, which include casebook plays and official interpretations by the governing powers at each level of baseball.

Gotcha

It seems like you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong with documentation. It apprears that the two sections of the rule contridict each other. Agree to disagree.

As neither a coach nor umpire, I'll side with the umpire when the two disagree.

Parking lots make decisions... j/k :)

It's not as much as proving one side wrong over the other, it's a matter of reading a complete rule, putting all it's pieces together and applying it.

My understanding (and I might be wrong):

A "Dropped" ball will never cross the foul line. So, 8.05(k) is correct.

A "Slipped Pitch" might or might not cross the foul line. If it does, it's a ball; if it doesn't it's either "no pitch" or "balk" depending on runners. so, 8.01(d) CMT is correct.

So, the rules don't conflict (although they could be clearer).

No, it's not agree to disagree. You think that this sentence has NEVER been discussed at the various clinics across the country.

Quick question - which of you has been to an umpiring clinic? This isn't exactly the only semi-ambiguous spot (or awful grammar, etc) in the rulebook. This is one of the things we cover at clinics. Feel free to hold on to your incorrect interp, since you've not been to one. Any umpire who has will call this right. You'll still think he's wrong because you've not discussed this with the people who make such interpretations. It's not agree to disagree - you are being told the correct answer, so it's really you insisting on being right in the face of the correct answer.

I bet you are a real joy to work with on the diamond.

I have seen this call, called both way so that crap about it being called the right way is dumb. Just because someone has been to a clinic doesn't mean they know the rule properly, just the interpretation of the one holding the clinic. I have been to coaching clinics that still have a batter lifting their back elbow.

I gave you a section that stated a dropped ball is a balk (How many dropped balls go foul from the set?). Another section was given that a ball must cross the foul line. I go by words in documents, not he said/ she said.

Apperantly you have something against me or coaches all around, because you have tried to bash me in two threads. That is fine but anything you have to say to me from now on will fall on deaf ears.

And you were given the reason why the ruling is contrary to what you think, yet that's not good enough for you.

Tell you what, next time this happens in one of your games, pull out your rule book, go out to discuss the ruling with the crew while you wave your highlighted section at the umpires.

You'll find out in due time what they think of your assessment of the situation.

This was said.

It was good enough for me.

In my game he will be reading the highlights on the bus (or where-ever)

What's with the personal attack?

The clinics (generally) are held by people who are getting their direction from TPTB. When something is a bit muddy in the rulebook (this sitch is CERTAINLY not the only place), it gets talked about. It gets pushed up the ladder for "official" rulings. SOMETIMES (although not nearly fast enough for any of our taste) it even gets fixed or clarified in the rulebook. But you need to realize that if an umpire is actually trained, and not just some local yahoo that umpires because he can't play anymore, they are going over situations just like this, getting official interps. I know this particular one has been mentioned more than once in clinics I've attended. That interp, which most of us here have heard, far outweighs a coach reading the book and seeing an apparent discrepancy, and then guessing.

Where did I bash you? I do "bash" things people say, especially when they are as uninformed as what you said in this thread. But I don't believe I've personally attacked you, other than my gradually increasing suspicion that you are a pseudonym for someone that trolled the area and was booted the very day you showed up.

:confused: Of course it was good enough for you... YOU said it. Good grief.

I get what you are saying. Ask a administrator/ moderator to do a IP check and that will put the issue to rest.

that's been done and while it can "prove" one side of the issue, it can't "prove" the other.

Huh, if you prove one side doesn't it disprove the other? I never understood math.

It's very hard to prove a negative.

My guess is he'll take the down time to brush up on his copy of "Umpiring for Dummies" by Tim McCarver. ;)

It's not math, it's a logic problem.

It's a non sequitur to go from "If A then B" to "If not A, then not B."