Yet another balk question

[tankmjg24]

So I am just checking on my interpretation of the rule. FED rules if it matters.

In my game today we had R1 with LHP who picked his leg up and picked the runner off of first base. I am U1 and my partner who is in B position signals balk. From my vantage point everything looked good. Coach came out to my partner and almost as soon as he got there he went back to his dugout so no fireworks.

In our post game I mentioned that I did not see the balk and asked what the pitcher did. My partner said that while going to first that the pitchers free foot landed on the backside of the rubber. He did not cross back behind the rubber, just raised his leg and went to first and his free foot landed behind. Now I thought that this was a legal move as the pitcher is gaining ground towards the base he is throwing to and he is throwing directly to the base. I thought that the cross behind the rubber part of the balk rule came into play when the pitcher's free foot crossed behind then they attempted a pick off (other than second of course).

Thoughts?

[mbyron]

If he steps and throws to an occupied base, it doesn't matter that the foot lands a bit behind the rubber.

[MD Longhorn]

Doesn't sound like a balk to me...

(PS - you are U1 ... why is someone at B?)

[Welpe]

It sounds to me like your partner misunderstands the the requirements to deliver the pitch (free foot passing completely back behind the rubber) with where his foot may land when attempting to throw to a base.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Doesn't sound like a balk to me...

(PS - you are U1 ... why is someone at B?)

Idiotic FED notation for the PU, I'm guessing. Next thing we'll see him post R1 at third base or something equally idiotic.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by tankmjg24

I am U1 and my partner who is in B position
Thoughts?

Tank,

For your future reference, in the 2-man system, the plate umpire is referred to as PU and the base umpire is referred to as BU.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Idiotic FED notation for the PU, I'm guessing. Next thing we'll see him post R1 at third base or something equally idiotic.

Of course R1 is at third base because NFHS Rules specifically state that B1 is the first batter and if he gets on base he becomes R1, and and downe the lineup we go for each inning. I work only games using NFHS Rules so when I post questions I am going to use NFHS nomenclature. I know that many here look down upon NFHS Rules, but some of us here only work NFHS Rules, and logically it makes sense: R1 on 3B, next two batters make outs, R4 on 1B, and B5 is the Batter.

I will admit that labeling the Umpires U1 for the P and U2, etc. for the Bases is stupid.

MTD, Sr.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Idiotic FED notation for the PU, I'm guessing.

Ah. Was trying to picture U1 in A ... and U3 in B, then wondering if he was working 4 man for some reason - then wondering why U2 would call a Balk like this that U1 passed on.

PU=U1 didn't even occur to me.

Must have more coffee.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Of course R1 is at third base because NFHS Rules specifically state that B1 is the first batter and if he gets on base he becomes R1, and and downe the lineup we go for each inning.

That doesn't mean it isn't stupid.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Of course R1 is at third base because NFHS Rules specifically state that B1 is the first batter and if he gets on base he becomes R1, and and downe the lineup we go for each inning. I work only games using NFHS Rules so when I post questions I am going to use NFHS nomenclature. I know that many here look down upon NFHS Rules, but some of us here only work NFHS Rules, and logically it makes sense: R1 on 3B, next two batters make outs, R4 on 1B, and B5 is the Batter.

I will admit that labeling the Umpires U1 for the P and U2, etc. for the Bases is stupid.

MTD, Sr.

That's not the nomenclature, though. There would never be an R4. If your scenario happened, it would be R1 on third base, R2 on first base. I've never seen an R4 referenced in a case play.

(How would this ever be easier than saying: "R1, R3, 2 outs"? I get the softball-only umpires not liking the much better baseball nomenclature because they hate everything to do with baseball, but why would anyone use the FED way over the much easier "normal" way?)

[ozzy6900]

This is the 2nd balk question where one of our brothers called a balk for a free foot landing "behind the rubber". Did someone "change " the rules?

Also, I was admonished in the last post because I stated that ..."it doesn't matter where the free foot lands as long as there is distance and direction...". Seems that this is exactly what everyone here is saying for this post.

Interesting.......

[TwoBits]

Wording of FED rule 6-2-4f regarding infractions that result in a balk:

"...failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in attempt to put out a runner."

If the pitcher's foot landed "on the backside of the rubber" as described in the OP, then it did pass behind the "perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate". Remember your geometry: planes extend indefinitely, and the "perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate" would not be limited to just the 24" width of the pitcher's plate.

Having said all that, I doubt I would have been able to see enough to call a balk from either behind the plate or from the B position.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

Wording of FED rule 6-2-4f regarding infractions that result in a balk:

"...failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in attempt to put out a runner."

If the pitcher's foot landed "on the backside of the rubber" as described in the OP, then it did pass behind the "perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate". Remember your geometry: planes extend indefinitely, and the "perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate" would not be limited to just the 24" width of the pitcher's plate.

Having said all that, I doubt I would have been able to see enough to call a balk from either behind the plate or from the B position.

It would be pretty hard for that entire foot to come behind the rubber on the step to first base. Couldn't imagine I'd even be looking to pick that nit.

[TwoBits]

Originally Posted by GROUPthink

Couldn't imagine I'd even be looking to pick that nit.

Agreed.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by TwoBits

Wording of FED rule 6-2-4f regarding infractions that result in a balk:

"...failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate, except when feinting or throwing to second base in attempt to put out a runner."

If the pitcher's foot landed "on the backside of the rubber" as described in the OP, then it did pass behind the "perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate". Remember your geometry: planes extend indefinitely, and the "perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher's plate" would not be limited to just the 24" width of the pitcher's plate.

Having said all that, I doubt I would have been able to see enough to call a balk from either behind the plate or from the B position.

See bolded, italized and underline portions... they contradict.