3rd to 1st Move Becomes a Balk

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by egj13

What you are continuing to miss MD is the decpetion in the move that makes it a balk...Even if you have disengaged the rubber when you spin on the front foot and fail to step ahead of the throw to first it is a balk.

Wrong. He is disengaged and is now an infielder. Infielders are not regulated by the pitching rules.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

Wrong. He is disengaged and is now an infielder. Infielders are not regulated by the pitching rules.

Funny for someone with so much experience...the MLB rule comment tells you directly that this is a balk.

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by egj13

Funny for someone with so much experience...the MLB rule comment tells you directly that this is a balk.

Really? Quote the rule in its entirety.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

Really? Quote the rule in its entirety.

it has been posted several times on here but here is exactly what it says...

with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then
immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an
attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step
directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk
Not that you will still be able to read it correctly so I don't know why I bother.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by egj13

I will add you to the camp that has no idea what he is talking about...

By the way I am just as veteran as most people on this board...

Some people have one year of experience 25 times over.

[Mrumpiresir]

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

(c) The pitcher, while touching his plate, fails to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base;

Comment:
It is possible, with runners on first and third, for the pitcher to step toward third and not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the
runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base. This is legal. However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and the immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.

I didn't think you would quote the entire rule or the comment.

RIF

[Mrumpiresir]

Originally Posted by Rich

Some people have one year of experience 25 times over.

You know, people can be enlightened if they are simply ignorant of a rule and willing to listen. But there is no fixing stupid.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Mrumpiresir

. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.

I didn't think you would quote the entire rule or the comment.

RIF

There you go again, trying to use the words from the rulebook to support your decision!

[Mrumpiresir]

Yeah, In most cases that works for me.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by egj13

Get the F out of here if you believe that...

I'm only going to address this.

Be careful.

[APG]

You sure do have a knack for having interpretations that are...well...contrary to everyone's....and I see it isn't regulated to just one sport.

[bluehair]

Originally Posted by egj13

What you are continuing to miss MD is the decpetion in the move that makes it a balk

You are under the misconception that deception is the reason for a balk. It is not. Not following the pitching rules is the reason for a balk.

As you say the rule is being changed so yours and our points are going to be moot. The only thing that might matter is your credibility on this board, which has taken a big hit is the eyes of all us know-nothings.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by APG

You sure do have a knack for having interpretations that are...well...contrary to everyone's....and I see it isn't regulated to just one sport.

He is well-learned in making up his own rules. I forgot he was the contrarian in the "LGP under the basket" discussion.

[egj13]

Originally Posted by zm1283

He is well-learned in making up his own rules. I forgot he was the contrarian in the "LGP under the basket" discussion.

Listen fellas..as always I appreciate the constructive criticism and once again will agree to disagree. I have umpired in 4 states now and have had this conversation in each of them with many umpires and I am not the only one to intrepret the 3rd to 1st move the way I do...no big deal. I still am confident that if I could show you physically what the example is saying we would all agree because clearly as I type something is being lost in translation but I digress.

As far as LGP in basketball under the basket...I am not the only one to hold that viewpoint either and hence have not changed my opinion based on the disagreement of some forum members.

Good thing that came out of this is I was able to waste a good chunk of a boring day at work debating for $30+ an hour...I'll chalk that up as productive day.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by egj13

Like I said..doesn't matter because the rule is changed this year so you guys can't miss it anymore.

I still have a hard time believeing that MLB would put an example of a play in the rule book that is impossible to perform...but hey keep on believing.

Under rule 2.0 Interference it says "On any interference the ball is dead."

You going to take this literally?

Sounds like maybe you need time with the rule book instead of in it. You are wrong concerning your opinion regarding this matter. I look forward to your other interpretations.