|
|||
Quote:
If the pitcher steps back, he has disengaged. If he feints (other that to first and, in OBR only, to third) and breaks contact he can be considered to have disengaged. If he feints and doesn't break contact he isn't (yet) considered to be disengaged. Last edited by bob jenkins; Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 01:54pm. |
|
|||
What if we didn't?
__________________
Bob P. ----------------------- We are stewards of baseball. Our customers aren't schools or coaches or conferences. Our customer is the game itself. |
|
|||
The form of a question I see,
It would be simpler to follow, and not three different arguments going on at the same time that differ from the OP......I don't mind people pointing out that for example.........after an answer has been given pointing the difference being FED allows a pitcher to..........please give the difference.
__________________
I have nipples, Greg. Can you milk me? |
|
|||
FED bulliten
3/1 Move: With runners on first and third, the pitcher may bluff a throw to occupied third (by stepping toward third) and then after, turn toward first and either feint or throw to first, assuming he has disengaged the rubber. He could use the same motion even if he stayed in contact with the rubber, although this move would require him to throw to first since he maintained contact with the rubber. This last move would re- quire the pitcher to make two distinct and recognizable moves, (cannot be done all in the same motion without deceiving the run- ner). (CB 6.2.4C)
What this move allows, that is not ordinarily permissible, is disengaging the rubber by stepping forward. To do this, he must step directly and gain ground toward third base. The pitcher may not prematurely flex either leg before stepping directly and throwing to first base. That is considered a feint. Step- ping toward either second or third base with- out completing the throw is legal if the base is occupied by a runner or there is an at- tempt to retire a runner.
__________________
"A picture is worth a thousand words". |
|
|||
Quote:
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. Last edited by David Emerling; Wed May 01, 2013 at 12:17pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Not arguing - just asking. |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
The play, in itself, is highly unlikely - agreed. But I don't think it would necessarily take Inspector Gadget to do that. In all likelihood, in such a play, the pitcher's pivot foot would go from in contact with the front portion of the rubber to being in contact on the back portion of the rubber. So, is it a matter of being simply being "in contact" with the rubber? Probably so - I guess. |
|
|||
To be completely honest, I was envisioning a RHP. I suppose this is possible with a LHP without contortionism coming into play...
But in either case the rule is relatively straightforward.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Yes, it commits him to 2nd ... but you are not required to throw when you go to 2nd. The play David's talking about would be a full fake to 2nd, without throwing, and then turning 90 degrees and throwing to first, all while keeping the pivot foot on the rubber.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'” West Houston Mike |
|
|||
Quote:
I was just givng the FED interp. Don't like it? Write them with a suggested rule change. (not meant directly to jicecone) |
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ASA & High School | Zepp | Softball | 10 | Fri Dec 17, 2010 09:46am |
ASA/High school | Chess Ref | Softball | 2 | Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:12am |
Interesting high school play | SC Ump | Softball | 18 | Fri May 16, 2003 06:42am |
High School Ump | Robert G | Baseball | 3 | Thu Jun 21, 2001 04:50pm |
over time play in high school football | left-field | Football | 4 | Wed Sep 06, 2000 11:18pm |