3rd to 1st Move Becomes a Balk
 

I read an article on the AP news wire. As of next season, the 3rd to 1st move will be a balk. One of the oldest deeks in baseball, which no one had a problem with (until some announcers this past season) will be no more. Personally, I think that if they do this, they better do something about the LHP notorious pick off moves. Why should the LHP's have and edge and RHP's don't. I just can't figure out what is happening with the game anymore.

I'm fine with it disappearing. Silly move that almost never fooled anyone above 13 and was mostly just a waste of time. Why have different rules for 3B and 1B about feinting and not throwing?

If your stupid enough to get picked off that way you shouldn't be in the game. Unfortunately most announcers are less smarter than the player getting picked off.

Oz, at the MLB level it stopped being a game a while ago. It's just entertainment now.

[QUOTE=jicecone;874645
Oz, at the MLB level it stopped being a game a while ago. It's just entertainment now.[/QUOTE]

Great point - attend a game today and the players are so spoiled, don't mingle with the fans, its all about entertaining.

And get a hangnail and they sit out for three games ...

Baseball as we know it is long gone ...

Thanks
David

At the MLB level, it is probably primarily used to get the batter, or runners to tip off a play the offense might attempt. They might want to keep the runner tighter at 1B if the F3 is playing behind the runner. Who cares?

Here's another.....
 

Official ?
 

If its SO official, why can't I find any rule change announcement on the MLB web site, nor find the language of the change anywhere?

It was magically beamed to Ozzy.

If you Google "mlb balk change" the whole first page is about it.

The rules are written to maintain some balance between the offense and the defense. If pitchers were allowed to feint to first base to pin runners there, the defense would be at a greater advantage because less runners could get into scoring position. So that's why the rulesmakers decided to prohibit feints to first, but not other bases.

It's similar to the foul bunt rule. Without it, batters could conceivably bunt away pitches that weren't in their wheelhouse. That gave the offense too much of an advantage, so we have a rule calling for an out when a batter bunts the ball foul with two strikes.

Forgive me for jumping on my soap box
 

This rule has always essentially been there (has been a case play in the rule book itself as long as I can remember) but it wasn't being called consistently so they just did away with the possibility of it ever happening.

SAY WHAT? Are you talking about the 3rd to 1st move? If you are the you didn't 'jump off your soapbox". you fell off. Please mention ONE game wher this wasn't called consistently, one. in alomost 30 years of umpiring, i can't recall ANYONE blowing this call, in games I have done or watched in person or on TV.

:confused::confused::confused:

Any umpire worth a damn can call this easily. If F1 steps and fakes to 3rd and clears the rubber and then fakes or throw to first, he has not violated a rule. If he steps to third and is is still in contact with the rubber and in the same motion turns and feints to first, he has balked. If he doesn't step toward third in his fake, he has balked.

I find this an entertaining part of the game and yes, I have seen it work.

I still contend there is no reason to change this rule.

Someone is dumbing down the game of baseball.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. I have never EVER seen an umpire call a balk on the move. So I'm not sure where you think the call was done inconsistently.

Well, maybe untrained umpires in youth ball have a problem with it. But there has never been any inconsistency with MLB umpires, in my mind, because they never call anything.

Rule change wording
 

I have read several "reports" of the rule change. This one is amusing:
End the balk rule now - Bless You Boys

I want to see the wording.
Does the rule change prohibit all feins to 3B or just when 1B is occupied?
What about when 2B is occupied?
Does F5 need to be holding R3 on (as F3 is required to at 1B) to receive a throw-over ?
Are feins to all bases now prohibited?

Until we see the wording, we can't tell what is to be applied/mis-applied.

Wait a minute. From the article that was referenced above:

"Under a rule change imposed by Major League Baseball for this season, pitchers can no longer fake a pickoff throw to third base."

So, are they making ALL fakes to third base illegal? Or just the ones that are followed with a subsequent move to first base?

All fakes.

(The subsequent move to first as part of the 3-1 move isn't important because F1 disengaged and was merely a fielder at that point.)

A lot of confusion out there. For example:


"Major League Baseball is imposing a rule that pitchers who fake a throw to third base and then throw to another base will be charged with a balk, according to the New York Times."
MLB roundup: New balk rule set for this season - Yahoo! Sports

But when you look up the NYT original piece, you find this:

"Under a rule change imposed by Major League Baseball for this season, pitchers can no longer fake a pickoff throw to third base."
Baseball Rule Change Eliminates a Fake Pickoff by Pitcher - NYTimes.com

{Groan...}

I'll just wait until the actual wording comes out.

I couldn't possibly care one way or the other.

I only care so I know how to call it next year. The results of this rule at our levels will be negligible.

The results at MLB is really just a time saver. The move is stupid and a complete waste of time at that level - it VERY RARELY gets anyone. With game times creeping up again, this might help getting it back toward 3 hours. (Do away with a batter stepping out more than once per AB would be another major step, imho).

Even in the current rule (before any change) it was a balk if you faked towards 3rd and then wheeled to throw to first without stepping towards first. Umpires at ALL levels were not enforcing the step towards first and thus not calling the rule as it was intended to be called.

Here is the excerpt stright from the MLB rule book:

"Rule 8.05(c) Comment: Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly
toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without
actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk.
Apitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him
to throw (except to first base only) because he steps. 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 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. Of
course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk."

So basically we as umpires weren't calling it consistently so baseball simply made it illegal at all times to take it out of our hands.

There's so much here that isn't right that I don't know where to begin.

As others have already pointed out, this account of the motivation for the change is incorrect. MLB doesn't care how you call your games or how anyone else might use their rules.

I have never seen F1 fein to 3B when he didn't come off the rubber on this move, which made it legal (previously) for the now infielder to throw to 1B. If F1 didn't come off the rubber, I can't image an umpire not recognizing it and balking it for no other reason than the ugliness it would take to perform.

Can you describe a sitch where you actually witnessed this "inconsistency"?

:eek::confused::confused:

Sorry we aren't going to be able to help you.

I think you don't understand what this phrase means. It does NOT mean the usual feitn to thrid then feint to first move you see.

Exactly, it means that F1 did not come off the rubber on the initial feint to 3B. In reality, he hasn't feined to 3B, hasn't delivered a pitch, hasn't thrown to an occupied base (or has done so without stepping directly to that base...he initially stepped towards 3B) , nor disengaged properly. That is why it is a balk.

I don't know about others, but I can honestly say I've never seen a pitcher execute this "wheel" motion the rule describes, where the pitcher steps towards third while staying in contact with the rubber, and then turn his upper body towards first while still staying in contact with the rubber and not stepping that way.

This has nothing to do with fixing umpiring inconsistency. It has everything to do with getting rid of a move that wastes everybody's time.

Exactly whos time is being wasted here? That is a lame, sorry A** excuse for sucking up to the sportswriters. Commericals waste people time, will they do away with them, not a chance. How about we change the game to 3 balls and two strikes instead of wasting time for each at Bat. Play only two outs. No timeouts are allowed. What the heck, cut the game to 7 innings

A play that maybe happens once a game, sometimes, and is part of the game and the strategy of it is not wasting anyone's time. Turning off your TV or leaving early are your alternatives. However, one thing for SURE !!!!

"There No Crying in Baseball"

I am either dreaming or we have some bad umpires in here.

The pitcher would only have become an infileder if he stepped backward off the rubber prior to feining to third base. In a 3rd to 1st scenario the pitcher rarely, if ever steps off first. So since he stepped directly towards 3rd..without stepping off...and then wheeled to throw to first without stepping towards first ahead of the throw he now balked. The fact that he lost contact with the rubber when he feinted to third does not releas him from the requirement to STEP towards first before he throws there. Pull up some video...I bet you will be able to see that after feining to thrid, he then turned to throw to first WIHOUT STEPPING AHEAD of the throw...which is a balk.

Clearly no one on this board was calling it a balk hence the reason to need to change the rule

My account for the motivation of the rule change came thusly...sitting at a dinner with the father of a MLB umpire last summer he brought up to me that MLB umpires had been informed that this rule would be eliminated because...wait for it...inconsistency in application.

It could be both. But if the pitcher steps toward third (or second) and in the process removes the pivot foot from the rubber (this happens 99.9% of the time), he has become an infielder, just as if he stepped backwards off the rubber.

to the extent that's true, I think the inconsistency is in not calling a balk when the pitcher didn't step toward third (either stepped more toward home, or didn't mov ethe free foot enough toward third -- left it in "the same footprint")

Ah. Well, at least we now understand your comment that it was not being called correctly. It's because you don't understand the rule in the first place. Glad that's cleared up.

MD...how the hell can you not read the comment from the MLB rule book and see that I am the only one on this board that DOES know what the rule says?

You are correct... but the bad umpires are the opposite group from what you're assuming.

Why would you think this. More importantly, what rule states this? This is just flat untrue. Feinting a throw (FEINTING, people, not FEINING) to third (or 2nd) is a legal disengagement from the rubber. You don't have to disengage first to feint a throw to 2nd or 3rd.

[QUOTE]So since he stepped directly towards 3rd..without stepping off...and then wheeled to throw to first without stepping towards first ahead of the throw he now balked.[/quote}This is only true if he manages all of this without removing his foot from the rubber at all. A) That's DAMN hard to do, and B) the reason you've never seen it is because it's a balk.

Herein lies the complete misunderstanding of this rule you seem to be having.

It was not being called a balk because it's not a balk... that said - you're literally insane if you think MLB would change a rule because the members of officiating.com were calling something incorrectly.

In my experience, if 99% of the people are saying one thing, and one person is saying something different, it's the one that's wrong 99% of the time. If you find yourself thinking you're the only one on this board that knows something, I guarantee you that you're wrong.

I read the comment from the MLB rule book. It does not refer to what you seem to think it does. It refers to a move that I believe I can safely assume NONE of us has ever seen anyone try.

Bob I don't know you but I have respect for you from following on the boards...but according to the MLB rule book you are incorrect.

Why would MLB put a comment with a particular rule interpretation and give an example of the play if it wasn't a common mistake made? I don't see what you guys are missing in the MLB comment.

When a pitcher steps towards third and then wheels on that front foot and throws to first without stepping towards first AHEAD OF THE THROW it is a balk even though his back foot broke with the rubber...

I am sorry that you don't understand...I do find it hard to believe that you would believe that MLB would put an example in the rule book that is impossible to do...why would they put that in there?

Add me into the camp that says you're wrong. The balk in the 3rd to 1st move is if the pitcher doesn't disengage his pivot foot from the rubber before throwing to first. (Or if he doesn't gain distance and direction to third on the feint) If he steps to 3rd and then disengages, he can throw or feint wherever he wants at that point.

Obviously.

No. If he wheels on the BACK foot and doesn't remove it from the rubber during the throw to third, then you have a balk.

You need to slowly read the part of the rule you are harping on. Here it is again so no one has to page back. Note where it says "SUCH A MOVE". It says that in the move it's describing, it is nearly impossible to step directly toward first base, and in that move, you have a balk. THE VERY NEXT SENTENCE says "of course" --- if the pitcher steps off (not disengages; not steps BACK; steps OFF) the rubber and then makes "such a move" - i.e. wheeling and throwing to first --- it's NOT a balk.

I see where your assumption has gone wrong. I ask you to take your assumption of what they are talking about and try very hard to fit the final sentence into your assumption ... it doesn't fit.

It means if the pitcher doesn't disengage with his pivot foot before "wheeling" to throw to first. If he disengages, he's fine.

egj13, you are flat wrong. Listen to the veterans on the board who have tried to gently let you know you are wrong. Get some experience and read the rulebook before posting your incorrect "knowledge".

I never see that move (at least as I use the word "wheels").

I just broke my ankle merely thinking about trying to wheel on my front foot and throw the other direction.

So..lol..I am trying to keep a straight face as I say this...you think that MLB put this in the rule book..let me break this description by MLB down.

A pitcher steps toward third...doesn't take his foot off the rubber (according to you) and then somehow with one foot on the rubber, one foot on the third base side of the mound attempts to throw to first...

This practice was such an issue that MLB felt of all the rules in the book, this one needed the example put in the book? Get the F out of here if you believe that...

Right. It's the move you make when you want to fake out your dog when you're throwing the tennis ball, or when you're having fun with your 7 year olds in the back yard.

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...

Yes, that is exactly what the rule is for. In FED, the pitcher doesn't have to disengage with his pivot foot. In OBR/NCAA he does have to.

What levels do you work?

So you are the only one that is correct and everyone else is wrong?

Doesn't sound like it

Here is what everyone is missing I think...

"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".

Look I don't know how you guys don't see this and I don't care really. It isn't a rule anymore anyway. The only reason I am so adamant on this is because of a discussion last year with the MLB umpire dad I was talking about earlier. This is exactly how his son explained it to him and how he explained it to me. The deception of the play is what is the balk...when you step toward third, then spin on that front foot to throw to first the deception of the play EVEN THOUGH YOUR FOOT HAS DISENGAGED THE RUBBER is what makes the move a balk. Now if you step towards 3rd, disengage, turn and STEP towards first it isnt a balk. Like I said this is an intrepretation straight from an MLB umpire. You all can take it or leave it I don't care.

Yes

And keep up with your blissful ignorance. Does it not make you wonder why you're the only one on here who interprets the rule this way?

If it was a problem, surely you can find video on MLB.com that shows this being called a balk, right?

I could say I talked to anyone and they told me anything. Doesn't make it correct.

Seriously - if you're so completely right in the face of everyone else telling you otherwise - what do you think they meant by this last statement.

But sure, you're right, and everyone else is wrong. Everyone. OK. Nice ego there.

BTW - anecdotes about something that a supposed MLB umpire's son might have said are rather meaningless.

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.

The whole world thinks you are the one that has been missing the call.

So tell me, are you the kind of guy that, after calling a balk, is going to give the offense the choice of the penalty or the result of the play?

I'll remember that the next time someone uses licorice or paraffin to deface a baseball.

You could be the most senior person this board, the internet, and the entire sport has ever seen, but you are not correct.

In OBR if a pitcher balks but the batter reaches first and all other runners advance at least one base then the balk is ignored.

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.

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.

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.

Some people have one year of experience 25 times over.

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

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

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

Yeah, In most cases that works for me.

I'm only going to address this.

Be careful.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Gets cold in Montana this time of year.

The rules changes are never published until they hit the rule book.

You won't find press releases about any new rule changes for the past several years.

At least two of the people here that disagree with you have also umpired in at least four states, as well...in each year they were in pro ball.

Mental States or Physical States?

Make that 16...

Nothing is being lost in translation. You just don't know what the rule means and the rest of us do.

Once again, the rule book says that a player can establish LGP anywhere on the court. You made up your own rule about that, and it doesn't matter who agrees with you, you're still wrong.

You still haven't told us what levels you work or have worked.

Interesting. We haven't had a character like ejg13 in a long time. "I am right and you are all wrong."....... interesting words of wisdom from such a learned official.

Doesn't matter. He dines with the offspring of those at the highest levels. Therefore anything he says is gospel.

Thanks for being a fan!

Dang you fellas are all pretty worked up about this...even making personal shots...shame shame

I do work with an umpire whose son works in the bigs and yes we have discussions...again, I don't care if you believe me or not I have no reason to make up something that lame

I currently work American Legion because that is all that is offered in Montana. I have previously worked High School and Pioneer League. Haven't had the chance to work any higher because I am busy moving as part of your military and makes it hard to advance when you start over every 3 years.

I didn't make up my own rule...I have a philosophy on how to administer the rule.

Since we are in the baseball forum now, it is kind of like strike zones. I like to give pitchers an extra inch off the corner of the plate (depending on level) but don't like to call the strike above the belly button. That is my personal philosophy on the strike zone. I am sure you have your strike zone too.

Beauty of it is this...I am not, nor will I ever be a professional umpire. That dream died when I enlisted in the military. However, I have recieved nothing but high praise in any state I have worked from coaches, partners and evaluators. Until one of you clowns is any of those 3, I could care less your personal opinion of how I officiate.

Come back in a few days when you'll be able to post again -- hopefully, without calling other posters names.

BTW, I carefully read through this thread and the other thread. Not one poster called you a name or got personal with you as far as I could tell.

And with that, the thread is closed. Any real conversation can be done in a new thread.