High school fake to 3rd play

[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.

[David Emerling]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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

I could see where the pitcher could do the classic "inside move", do a light step toward 2nd, not even make a fake throw, and still be in contact with the rubber. Then, he could throw to 1st while still engaged.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

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.

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.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.

Then that would be a balk, although any R1 who gets picked on that move probably deserves what he gets.

[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".

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by 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".

I don't understand why disengaging the rubber on the moves isn't a rule across the board in all rule sets. Pitcher still has to disengage, and re-toe the rubber anyway.......hopefully, bluehair can talk me through it.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I don't understand why disengaging the rubber on the moves isn't a rule across the board in all rule sets.

If your going to come on here and start talking logical, I will immediately recommend your removable.