High school fake to 3rd play

[upprdeck]

runners on first and third. right hand pitcher steps towards 3rd, fakes the throw, turns and throws towards first, and throws it out of bounds.. How many bases does the runner on first get.

does it mean he has stepped off the rubber so its a two base error? does he have to step back off the rubber for that to be a two base error?

the Umps ruled it one base, and said there is no appeal possible on the play. If it was a two base error that would seem to be a rule interpretation and appeal-able?

it felt like it should be a two base error .

[bob jenkins]

Depends on what the pitcher did. If he broke contact with the rubber on the fake to third, then it's a two base award. If he didn't then it's a one base award. 99% of the time it's the former.

Note that in NCAA, the pitcher had to break contact, or it would have been a balk to throw to first.

(And, in OBR, the fake itself to third is a balk.)

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Depends on what the pitcher did. If he broke contact with the rubber on the fake to third, then it's a two base award. If he didn't then it's a one base award. 99% of the time it's the former.

I think what you say is true, mostly because I believe I have read that as an interpretation somewhere.

However, I've always disagreed, on a philosophical level with that interpretation.

"From the rubber" is generally meant to mean "directly from the rubber." We all know that once a pitcher steps off, he becomes an infielder. I believe the same should be true when the pitcher legal steps toward a base in an attempt to make a play. As soon as he has completed that maneuver, whether he throws the ball or not, he is now an infielder and is no longer considered a pitcher who is legally engaged with the rubber - whether his foot happened to break contact with the rubber while feigning should be irrelevant. The runners have had ample opportunity to see that the pitcher is no longer "engaged" with the rubber the moment he stepped toward a base and did not deliver the pitch. If the pitcher were legally engaged with the rubber, that would mean that he could legally deliver the pitch to the batter. After faking to 3rd (without breaking contact with the rubber), would we allow the pitcher to deliver the pitch to the batter? No! That's because he's no longer legally engaged with the rubber - even though he is still in contact with the rubber.

Yes, yes, yes. I know you can say, "I have never seen that happen" or "Why would a pitcher ever do something like that?" or "I don't see how a pitcher could physically do that." All of which I agree. Remember, this is an academic point. Sometimes you have to contrive situations for academic purposes. That is often a good litmus test of how solid a rule or interpretation may be. It should hold up in all situations - no matter how bizarre.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

. If the pitcher were legally engaged with the rubber, that would mean that he could legally deliver the pitch to the batter. After faking to 3rd (without breaking contact with the rubber), would we allow the pitcher to deliver the pitch to the batter? No! That's because he's no longer legally engaged with the rubber - even though he is still in contact with the rubber.

David, that is not a true statement. He would NOT be allowed to pitch to the batter because he would be in violation of "failing to pitch to the batter in a continous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body...........". NOT because he's no longer legally engaged with the rubber - even though he is still in contact with the rubber."

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by jicecone

David, that is not a true statement. He would NOT be allowed to pitch to the batter because he would be in violation of "failing to pitch to the batter in a continous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body...........". NOT because he's no longer legally engaged with the rubber - even though he is still in contact with the rubber."

Then let me ask you this: With runners at 1st and 2nd - if the pitcher faked to 2nd but did not break contact with the rubber - and then he turned to throw to 1st - would you apply the same criteria as you would in the 3rd-to-1st maneuver and balk him? [FED]

Not arguing - just asking.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Then let me ask you this: With runners at 1st and 2nd - if the pitcher faked to 2nd but did not break contact with the rubber - and then he turned to throw to 1st - would you apply the same criteria as you would in the 3rd-to-1st maneuver and balk him? [FED]

Not arguing - just asking.

I would... and then I'd call a medic to look at F1's broken ankle.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Then let me ask you this: With runners at 1st and 2nd - if the pitcher faked to 2nd but did not break contact with the rubber - and then he turned to throw to 1st - would you apply the same criteria as you would in the 3rd-to-1st maneuver and balk him? [FED]

Not arguing - just asking.

Yes I would apply the same criteria as you would in the 3-1 maneuver, however, I would only balk if he did NOT step toward either base.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by David Emerling

Then let me ask you this: With runners at 1st and 2nd - if the pitcher faked to 2nd but did not break contact with the rubber - and then he turned to throw to 1st - would you apply the same criteria as you would in the 3rd-to-1st maneuver and balk him? [FED]

Not arguing - just asking.

Even with a LHP, I'm having trouble envisioning how he could fake to second without his free foot breaking the back plane of the rubber -- which commits him to either second or home.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

David, that is not a true statement. He would NOT be allowed to pitch to the batter because he would be in violation of "failing to pitch to the batter in a continous motion immediately after any movement of any part of the body...........". NOT because he's no longer legally engaged with the rubber - even though he is still in contact with the rubber."

And that's also why other codes have (or HAD in OBR) the 3-1 (or 2-1) move a balk if contact isn't broken.

I was just givng the FED interp. Don't like it? Write them with a suggested rule change. (not meant directly to jicecone)

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

And that's also why other codes have (or HAD in OBR) the 3-1 (or 2-1) move a balk if contact isn't broken.

I was just givng the FED interp. Don't like it? Write them with a suggested rule change. (not meant directly to jicecone)

I fully agree with you Bob. When I first started officiating, I was told many times that if it looks weird, it's probably a balk. These scenarios are weird looking whether it is a RHP or LHP, and for certain, one partner is going to be calling, "Balk".

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by upprdeck

runners on first and third. right hand pitcher steps towards 3rd, fakes the throw, turns and throws towards first, and throws it out of bounds.. How many bases does the runner on first get.

does it mean he has stepped off the rubber so its a two base error? does he have to step back off the rubber for that to be a two base error?

the Umps ruled it one base, and said there is no appeal possible on the play. If it was a two base error that would seem to be a rule interpretation and appeal-able?

it felt like it should be a two base error .

In order to performe the 1st to 3rd move properly, F1 must disengage the rubber before throwing to 1st. Therefore, you fall back on the "1 from the rubber, 2 from the field" rule and the award for a successful 1st to 3rd move with an overthrow would be 2 bases TOT.

[upprdeck]

Thats how we felt at the time that he had to disengage to throw to first.. It was also kind of confusing when the opposing coach argued its only one base because the runner was not half way to 2nd when the ball went out of bounds..

My thought on that was maybe some Kick ball rule?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

In order to performe the 1st to 3rd move properly, F1 must disengage the rubber before throwing to 1st. Therefore, you fall back on the "1 from the rubber, 2 from the field" rule and the award for a successful 1st to 3rd move with an overthrow would be 2 bases TOT.

That's NOT true under FED rules, Ozzy.

I recognize that the OP said "HS" and not "FED".

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

In order to performe the 1st to 3rd move properly, F1 must disengage the rubber before throwing to 1st. Therefore, you fall back on the "1 from the rubber, 2 from the field" rule and the award for a successful 1st to 3rd move with an overthrow would be 2 bases TOT.

In FED F1 does not have to disengage before throwing to 1B. But if he doesn't disengage he has to throw. As Bob says, 99% of the time there is a disengage. I've never seen the other 1 percent.

[upprdeck]

can someone explain how someone can fake to 3rd and throw to first without disengaging? In my case i was trying to describe the pitcher stepped to 3rd with his left ft, followed thru and his right foot came off ending up parallel with his left, he then turned and threw to first.

could he fake a throw to 3rd without stepping with an arm fake and then reverse and throw to first? if so he doesnt need to step back off the rubber?

or is there some other way to fake the throw and not disengage?