Rule clarification:

A pitcher is standing on the mound, but is in no way in any part of his delivery to home plate.

There is a runner on 3rd base and it is a full count on the hitter.

Before the pitcher makes any part of his delivery towards home plate, the runner takes off from third in an attempt to just outright steal home. After the runner is well on his way, the pitcher without stepping off throws to the plate which is not considered a balk but also not knowing whether the pitcher is simply throwing a pitch to the batter or is attempting to throw out the runner attempting to steal. The runner beats the throw home before the ball arives, but the ball also crosses the plate within the confines of the strike zone and could be considered strike 3 to the batter which just stands there.

Does the run count since the play took place before there was any action by the pitcher in delivering a pitch to the plate, or would this still be construed as a pitch to the plate and then be the 3rd out and the run does not count?

In going to the plate he must either perform the stretch/set prior to delivery, or the windup motion. Anything else would become a balk/quick pitch and allow the runner to advance to home.

A "quick pitch" is "one made with obvious intent to catch a better off balance." I don't read that in the scenario presented.

And, I fail to see any violation of the "windup motion" (or any requiremtn to perform any "motion" while in the windup position).

Based on what's presented, I'd judge this to be a legal pitch, strike three, batter out, no run scores.

A ball thrown to the plate from the rubber is considered a pitch, not a pickoff attempt---even if such pitch is illegal by not properly meeting the rule requirements thus resulting in a balk.

The pitcher <u>must</u> disengage the rubber if he desires to throw to home to make a play on the runner instead of making a pitch.



Freix

If he hasn't stepped off, it's a pitch in my book, strike three, no run. The thing that I see happening in this situation though is the catcher jumping up to make a play, probably blocking my view of the pitch, which to me would be ball, score the run.

If the pitcher DOES step off in order to make a play at home, but the batter swings and hits a home run, is the batter out for interference?

The batter would be out if two are already out.
The runner would be out for the batter's interference if less than two out.


Freix

This post was originally made in April of this year at a time that I was not visiting all that many umpire boards or websites. I came across the post via a search on Google. I called a balk about two weeks ago on an attempted steal of home. I told the pitcher who had considerably accelerated his delivery (but did pitch from the windup position) that this was a Quick Pitch Last night I got out my Balk Videos Pitching Regulations and Balks by Jim Evans (1999) as well as See a balk call a balk by Al Kaplan (1995) with then Brewers pitching coach Don Rowe. It seems to me that the pitcher can accelerate his delivery to the plate as long as he does not Quick Pitch. I am not an umpire who calls all the balks that I see but I realize that this one is key. Anyone with any clarification on how to handle the steal of home as it pertains to the pitcher's delivery? Jim/NYC

I think the most important aspect, Jim, is to concentrate on the pivot foot. Know if it's a pitch or a throw. That is, did F1 disengage backward? Did he come forward off the rubber with the pivot foot before stepping to throw? Or, did he merely speed up his delivery motion (which is allowable) and properly step with his nonpivot foot? Of course, all this assumes that F1 is in the windup stance, and the batter is prepared to bat. If the batter is not ready and the pitch is delivered, then you have a quick pitch if F1 didn't disengage.

If F1 is in stretch---a highly unlikely situation where R3 would be breaking to the plate---you must be certain a stop is properly made if F1 delivers from the rubber.

Bottom line, too many variables depend primarily on what F1 does with his pivot foot in his initial reaction to R3 breaking to the plate.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ump20

Quote:

Originally posted by mikek Rule clarification: I told the pitcher who had considerably accelerated his delivery (but did pitch from the windup position) that this was a Quick Pitch

You were wrong. There's nothing against speeding up (or slowing down) the delivery.

And, a Quick Pitch is specifically defined as (something like) "Pitching before the batter is ready" -- it has nothing to do with the runner or with the pitcher's specific motion.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bob jenkins

Quote:

Originally posted by Ump20 Quote: Originally posted by mikek Rule clarification: I told the pitcher who had considerably accelerated his delivery (but did pitch from the windup position) that this was a Quick Pitch You were wrong. There's nothing against speeding up (or slowing down) the delivery. And, a Quick Pitch is specifically defined as (something like) "Pitching before the batter is ready" -- it has nothing to do with the runner or with the pitcher's specific motion.

I think you will see that I am aware that the pitcher can speed up his delivery. I should have been more specific that I thought the batter was not ready. Perhaps I need some clarrification on a batter being Ready. I thought Freix gave some good suggestions on this play. My partner, a pretty good college ump, told me again that I got the call right. I guess I am not 100% convinced that I did and more importantly I am looking for some tips from other guys what to look for in order to be better prepared NEXT TIME - Jim

Jim, my advice would be to simply <b>call the pitch on its merits</b> and don't be concerned with anything but the most obvious of balks - eg the catcher stepping out in front of the plate to glove the pitch.

IF you believe there was a possibility that the pitcher stepped off the rubber before delivering the ball, call "Time" and check when the play is over. You can always sort this one out later. Either the batter is out on the strike (or batter's interference - if any - with 2 outs) and no run scores or, if there is interference by the catcher, there is another outcome that can be easily be determined after the following action.

The key issue for the original poster was that the runner would need to have crossed the plate BEFORE the pitcher even commenced his delivery of the pitch in order for the run to count. IOW, the steal of home would need to have been completed BEFORE the pitcher made any motion naturally associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter - defined as the <i>Time of the Pitch</i>.

BTW, if <b>you</b> were ready then there's a good chance the <b>batter</b> was ready too. Most experienced umpires will wait for the batter to be reasonably set before getting set themselves. That way it's easy to tell an illegal quick pitch from an ordinary delivery.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Aug 1st, 2003 at 05:18 PM]

Ready...set.....
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~
Warren, your last statement here has me thinking....(dangerous, I know..lol) I was taught to stay in "ready" till f1 commences his motion, ie; I am up with hands on front of hips, F1 sarts motion and I go to my set and stop(at 5'8", this is quite quick). Now I have seen guys that get "set" while F1 is still looking R1 back or even taking signs, from the sacks I see some guys sinking...sinking...etc. By getting set too early. I realize it may different for you tall guys.....whats up?????

Re: Ready...set.....
 

Chris, there are two different schools of thought on that issue:<ol><li>If you get set too EARLY then you'll tire quickly and your game will suffer<p><li>If you get set too LATE then your eyes don't have time to adjust before the pitch is on its way</ol>I subscribe to the latter school of thought. Game fitness and the double wide stance should take care of the former.

I certainly wouldn't get set until the pitcher is almost ready to pitch - ie. taking signs is way too early, IMO.

OTOH, I sure wouldn't wait until <i>after</i> the pitcher has commenced his motion to pitch either. Simultaneously should be ok most of the time for the windup, but maybe not for the set.

Don't ask me for the data, 'cause I don't have it, but my understanding is that a study was done that found if the umpire wasn't down, set and steady <i>before</i> the pitcher released the ball, then his eyes didn't have time to focus on the point of release and tracking the pitch suffered as the result.

My point was that you wouldn't get set BEFORE the <i>batter</i> was ready, regardless of what the pitcher was doing at the time.

Cheers

When the pitcher starts his motion is when I get set. The timing is perfect for me.

It normally isn't a question of fitness. Even the most physically fit among us experiences muscle fatigue. Spend too much time set and you, too, will experience muscle fatigue. That makes it tougher and tougher to have a consistent head position, especially in the later innings.

clarified...
 

Jim and Warren, we be on same page. Wind-up is not hard to work from....set, I move to "my set" as he is coming set, works great for me. Although....some of those moves to first get me at times, I'm moving down and got a toss to first(usually a prayer that my BU has it...LOL)

Re: clarified...
 

Sounds about what I use, too, Chris. Remember, though, what you are looking for on that move to first is whether the pitcher steps ahead of the throw. Your BU will have the play covered. It's your job to watch for the balk, especially a failure to step.

If you use the double-wide stance, that drop into your set is only a short one, and usually pretty quick as a rule. Even though moving downward, you should still be able to see the pitcher's action if you aren't fooled into following the path of the ball, as so many unfortunately are.

Cheers

Warren, it is paramount to know whether the pitcher made the throw from the rubber or whether he first stepped back off the rubber with his pivot foot. It doesn't matter if you and the batter are ready for the pitch or not if a pitch is not delivered. IOW, the pitcher disengaged before throwing and the incoming ball is a throw and not a pitch. Yet, it seems to me you are still willing to call a strike---or perhaps even catcher interference---even if it's not a pitch. You state you can then later check your partner to see if the pitcher disengaged before throwing.

The only way you'll know if he legally disengaged is by giving focus to the pivot foot---something that should be done anytime the pitcher has engaged the rubber with runners on any base. Even without a play at home, if the pitcher plays elsewhere an award may be determined based upon whether the pitcher disengaged before throwing to a base. <b>It's something you must focus on as an official.</b>

Is this the same Warren Willson that recently discussed his beliefs to get your own calls right and not to seek help? The same Warren Willson that said it's illegal to change a call, but now he's willing to do that if his partner can add information that he was apparently unaware of---that is, whether or not the pitcher disengaged before bringing the ball to the plate? Have you changed your tune so quickly Warren..........LOL? You seem to be telling us to just call any incoming ball a pitch, and then to seek help to later sort it out. I, Warren, disagree with that and believe it's important that the PU know, when the ball is en route, whether it's a pitch or a throw.

This call is not a rule interpretation. <B>This is a judgment call.</b>
Did the pitcher disengage before throwing or didn't he? That's judgment, Warren!!!
Or is this listed as a changeable call in your accepted List of 5?
If so, I failed to see it.

There is a major difference, Warren, on whether the batter will be declared out on strike 3, negating the score if the 3rd out, or whether a potential catcher's interference occurred causing awards to the batter and runners. What if the batter hits a home run, Warren? Are you going to let him round the bases <b><U>and afterward determine</b></U> whether it's a home run or batter interference for hitting a throw instead of a pitch? I guess you could go check your partner...........

Sorry, Warren, but my belief is to attempt to get it right to start with.
That means <b><U>knowing</b></u> whether that ball was thrown from on or off the rubber. I'll easily accomplish that by concentrating on his pivot foot, Warren. That doesn't mean I'm oblivious to other actions, but the pivot foot is the primary point of focus.

Typically the umpire preparation is not a problem because the pitcher engaged must either come set (thus providing a forewarning for preparedness at the plate), or he initiates his rocker step to deliver. The problem here though is that the pitcher is not <u>required</u> to take a rocker step. That is, although the rocker step may be part of his normal motion, <b>he is not prohibited</b> from merely stepping forward from the rubber with his nonpivot foot and pitching. While the batter may be ready in the box, it's still likely to catch you and perhaps the batter offguard---especially with the added stress of an advancing runner. Still, the pitcher's actions may not be illegal simply because he changed his windup motion. Even if caught offguard, you must know whether that incoming ball is a throw vs. a legal pitch---and you can't know that if you don't know what happened with the pitcher's feet.

<hr width=50%>
Anytime the pitcher is on the rubber with runners on base, focus on the feet while allowing your peripheral vision---which works well in the limited area of the pitcher's body---to pick up the other factors of motion. The more experienced you become, the easier it is to accomplish.


Just my opinion,

Freix

What's that, Warren.........
A picture of you behind the dish ????????

Don't worry, though, your partner will tell you if the pitcher disengaged the rubber,
even if you're still asleep back there............LOL.


Freix

Dispensing with twaddle...
 

For those who might be tempted to believe that it is possible to "focus on the pivot foot" while at the same time also focusing on the point of release of a pitch, let me say that it is scientifically IMPOSSIBLE for you to be able to <b>focus</b> on BOTH things at the same time.

Either you focus on the point of release of the pitch, so you can track the pitch all the way to the glove, or you focus on the pivot foot and give up on calling the pitch. Any GOOD, EXPERIENCED umpire knows that to be true. OTOH, any umpire with 1 year's experience 20 times over wouldn't understand that point.

Don't be fooled by a bunch of semi-plausible rhetoric. Words don't increase in value by virtue of their numbers! Some people will say anything to ensure they have the last word on a subject. This has been mine.

Cheers

are yo for real?????
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~
Lesseeee, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS when a F1 disengages! Does not take a brain surgeorn to figure this out. 3 moves to look for, jump-spin(otr), step and throw(otr, look for D&D), step off(dance, pick his nose, scratch his butt), who cares at this point. I've got my soon to be 9 year old with better grasp of this stuff than you......why you make it so complicated???....Freix?

Re: are yo for real?????
 

Actually, Chris, factors of a charging runner, the pitcher possibly not taking his expected normal windup, and the quick change in the speed of the delivery to the plate tend to make the situation more complex and stressing than you portray it. Frequently that's further complicated by the actions of the batter or perhaps even the catcher leaving the box to move on or in front of the plate. Perhaps you've not been there, or perhaps you're just so much better than anyone else that you don't realize the added stress. Certainly your 9 year old son must be........LOL.

Regardless, the point I was making was the importance to be alert and to <b><u>know</u></b> whether you have a pitch vs. a throw, and not assume it's a pitch and then "call Time and check [with your partner] when the play is over" as Warren advises. If you agree with Warren, Chris, I'd strongly suggest you consider taking some pointers from your 9 year old son.


Freix

The point is... consistency
 

It appeared to me that Friex's main point was Warren's unwillingness to seek help on a possible pulled foot, but his encouragement to seek help on this pitch/throw situation.

I see the similar situation here that developed in the pulled foot thread. Yes, everyone wants to get the call correct the first time. It apparently boils down to the same key question. IF your partner has information that can help... do you go to him for help?

Two schools of thought and everyone is convinced that his alma mater is the best.

Re: The point is... consistency
 

See, Pat, this is where Freix's BS is so insidious. I have NEVER said I was unwilling to seek help on a possible pulled foot. That was Freix's distortion of the facts. Instead I said you should seek help on a pulled foot BEFORE you make a safe/out call. There is a HUGE difference there that Freix invariably ignores in order to make his nit-picking personal points.

In this case I told a fellow official to forget about anything but the most obvious of balks and concentrate on following the pitch. As PU that should be the primary responsibility. Sure it would be good to know whether what you're looking at is either a pitch or a throw, but if the disengagement is late and you have already focused on the release point then you simply won't be able to see that.

If your partner has information that can help then YES you go to him for that help ... AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME! With some calls the "appropriate time" never comes, because of following action. Freix refuses to acknowledge that fact. That would mean acceding to his arch enemy's infamous <i>List of Five</i> calls that can be changed. In this case the subsequent game action would be easily reversable, as I pointed out in my original post on the subject.

I cannot tell you how bone tired I am of defending my point of view against the continual inanities of Steve Freix. I don't bother answering his tripe any more, but I do rely on the rest of the sensible posters here to be able to sort the meat from the gristle. You see, Pat, there really are NOT "<i>two schools of thought</i>" on the key point; only the one sensible approach and the Freix school of naive nonsense.

Freix's opposition to me and my opinions is intensely personal and it goes back a long way. Please, don't be fooled into thinking it has any basis in good officiating practice.

Cheers

Re: Re: are yo for real?????
 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
Steve, I agree..throw v pitch is a definite concern.You made it sound like a politcal rcall election(I live in CA). AND, bet ya can't hit my soon to be 9 year olds curve ball!!:)