High school fake to 3rd play
 

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 .

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.)

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.

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?

That's NOT true under FED rules, Ozzy.

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

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.

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?

A feint requires a step, but doesn't require arm motion.

You can feint without coming off the rubber. Go ahead -- try it in your living room / den / office. Step ahead then stop, and pivot back the other way.

Imagine a VERY VERY small step toward third without committing one's balance in that direction. Then immediately pushing off the free foot back toward first and literally spinning to throw.

Like has been said here a bunch ... I've never seed it live. I've seen it in training videos, and each one looks like the pitcher is uncomfortable and in pain trying to execute this move we never ever really see to illustrate a rule we never ever need to use.

Maybe he wouldn't let you appeal, (question the interpretation of the rule), for the same reason he got the call wrong. He didn't know the rule.

The term "disengage" is really a misnomer. There is no physical way a pitcher can fake or make pick offs without physically disengaging the rubber. For the purposes of ruling on over throws out of play, we consider a pick off 'from the rubber' if the pitcher doesn't actually step backwards off the rubber, no? Any pick off where the pitcher stays in front of the rubber can be considered, 'from the rubber', at least for the purposes of pick-offs to first.

Not really, on the move in question, or really on any move where you start to throw toward 2nd or 3rd and don't actually throw... it doesn't matter which direction you "disengage" to (in fact, when failing to throw to third, you usually disengage toward third ... and definitely not "backward off the rubber") - you have disengaged. Normally - who cares... but should the throw back to first go out of play, it does matter.

Of course it matters, and that was my point. On the fake 3rd to 1st move, with the ball thrown out of play, you will award 1 base? Or 2?

On a straight pick off move, righty to first who steps back off the rubber and throws out of play, 1 or 2 bases?

Um ... depends on if they disengage. What exactly are you saying?

Sounded like you were saying that unless you step back first, you're not disengaging. That's what I was disagreeing with. This move can be done by disengaging TOWARD THIRD (your foot comes off) ... and in fact almost every time, it does. If you don't then throw to 1st, no balk. If you do and it goes out of play - 2 bases.

This move can also be done without disengaging - keeping your foot on the rubber. (I said earlier we don't really see this, other than on video ... but it's possible) If you don't step off the rubber - and then don't throw to first it's a balk ... and if the ball goes out of play, 1 base.

Don't worry, no thesis here
 

Two bases.

I missed this question on FED test this year. The question said "pivot" which I interpreted to mean did not disenagage and so I answered per previous (prior to this year rule change) OBR interp since I was not aware of a FED rule. I was not aware there was a FED case play that said he could do this.

But I also have never seen a pitcher make this move without coming off the rubber in his fake to 3b.

Hmmm,
 

DG:

You may have got to the root of this discussion.

The rule book contends that there is only ONE legal way to disengage the pitcher's plate, that is by 'stepping back'.

So when a pitcher fakes to third and "comes off" the pitcher's plate has he disengaged or should he be consider still on the plate?

Enquiring minds want to know.

What a silly riddle. When F1 came off the rubber on his fake to 3B he has disengaged from pitching requirements. When F1 is on the rubber/set he can:
1) continue engagement of his pitching duties and deliver a pitch;
2) step back off the rubber (disengage from his pitching duties);
3) step and throw/feint to make a play on a runner (disengaging from his pitching duties);
4) balk.

I did not know that in Fed, F1 could step towards 3B, not come off the rubber and then step and throw/feint to 1B legally. That might be the screwiest Fed rule CB play there is...good thing it never happens...knock on wood. The next (il)logical step in this Fed interp is after stepping towards 3B and not coming off the rubber, F1 can legally deliver a pitch. Please don't tell me that is true.

He can't (legally) feint to first if he stays on the rubber during this move -- feinting would be a balk.

Its been there as long as I have been doing HS ball. in fact it used to be in the Rule book but I only see it in the case book now .

Case Book 6.1.5. it specifically describes this op and the fact that it is one base award if the pitcher does not "step off" and two base award if the does "step off". And yes I remember seeing it once or twice by a pitcher that played for Garden City HS in Long Island. I specifically remember it because my partner called the balk for not stepping off and we had to correct the call.

Take it to the extreme: F1 fakes to third, R3 breaks, & F1 takes two steps, throws toward F5 and the ball goes into DBT. Does anyone think he has NOT disengaged? Does anyone think this should be only a one-base award?

But you already knew that.....

What would you call if it was a lefty pitcher doing the same thing to first. One base award. Why should it be different for the same move to 3rd.?

I asked that question at a Jim Evans clinic a while ago and the answer was that it was a legal disengage. Thus a pitcher who steps legally in his feint to 2B or,in FED 3B, is now allowed to run at the runner.

I will recind this, the same move to first would be a balk because you have to throw over stepping from the plate, you don't at third.

That's not the extreme. F1 fakes to 3rd and R3 breaks hard, F1 runs right at him, ending up involved in a 1-2-5-1-6-5-2-1 rundown at which point F1 throws it out of play. But... he didn't disengage, so 1 base for everyone and R1 who's already on 3rd base now, goes back to 2nd. :)

True...my error.
Correct the call and I'll bet, use all of your people handling skills in order to keep OHC from being EJ'd.

Your right, but we are ALWAYS stuck in the middle. Getting Right and getting it in their favor is always two different things.

The season ended last night, time for playoffs and summer ball. You really do have to love doing this, or............... were all just crazy!!!

This was the point of my earlier post.

If F1 fakes to third then wheels and FAKES to first, without first stepping BACK off the rubber to legally disengage, what do you have?

Nothing. Mostly because your assertion about stepping toward a base to feint or throw not being disengagement is incorrect.

I'm not sure that was my contention. I was merely extending the logical argument a bit further, and perhaps trying to stimulate some debate.

My actual contention is that most pick-offs or throws to a base by a pitcher are done while not in physical contact with the rubber. Now this pitcher may not have actually stepped back, off the rubber to 'legally' disengage, but they are nonetheless, not touching the rubber while throwing. To me, this is the key to determining the number of bases we award.

Thoughts?

That is not the determinate factor. The "jab step" and "jump turn" are moves that start from the rubber, but the pitcher is not in contact when the throw is made. These are a balk (if a feint) or a 1 base award.

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.

Some of you are only mucking up the whole thread with "what if"...:rolleyes:

What if we didn't?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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

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

I would disagree with that statement, and that training.

Funny. I recently added ST to my ignore list (actually he's the only one in there). I doubt he can sustain any kind of "talking logical" pattern...but I'll never know.

Worst advice ever. I'm sure you've discarded that since then.

Sorry guys I should have cleared that up. I never accepted it to begin with.

I subscribe to the school of, if you can't explain why you just called a Balk, then it is obvious that you don't know enough about the subject to be calling a Balk.

Absotively.

You're taking it too literally.

With every pitch, do you tell yourself, "That was not a balk"?

No! You don't. And that's because nothing looks unusual about it.

It doesn't even occur to you to call a balk.

But, when something looks odd, even if at the very instant it occurs you could not immediately say WHY it's a balk - your mind is racing to determine why, indeed, it is a balk. What sets our brain in motion is precisely because "it looks wrong".

The key is that you have to be able to intelligently and properly articulate why it was a balk once you call it.

SIDENOTE: Whenever I'm a BU, with a runner on 1st, I have to confess that I do, specifically, tell myself "That was not a balk" - especially if the pitcher has already demonstrated that he is on the edge legality.

Nope and nope.

If it's "odd" I do ask, "Was that legal or not?" but that's not the same as trying to determine "why, indeed, it is a balk."

And, I know how to articulate it BEFORE I call it.

Isn't that exactly what I just said? You don't ask yourself, "Was that legal or not?" if it doesn't look odd - do you?

That's my point! Our experience tells us - "That's not right." In the next instant, we quickly figure out why it's not right.

Whether you realize it or not - there are many balks when there is a period of time (maybe 1-sec, maybe 3-secs) between you noticing that "it didn't look right" and when you can say exactly why it's a balk.

Obviously, there are some balks that simply call themselves - the more common ones - like failure to pause in the set position - not completing a throw to 1st without disengaging - dropping the ball while engaged with the rubber - starting to deliver and then stopping. But there is a host of less common balks (call them unusual or unexpected balks) that can occur and, when you see them, the reason doesn't immediately occur to you, but the fact that it "looked wrong" does immediately occur to you. Your mind races - you realize why it was wrong - and you call "Balk!" It all starts because "it looked wrong".

I'm not saying that if "it looks wrong" it's a balk. I'm saying that if "it looks wrong" that's when your brain starts considering that it might be a balk.

I've seen a pitcher do something odd - I can't see why it was illegal. I call nothing. My partner and I look at one another as if to see, "That was weird" - yet neither of us called a balk because, as we replay what the pitcher did in our head, we can't see what he did wrong.

There is a pitcher around here who, on occasion, does not go through his normal wind-up routine. He just gets the signal and throws it. He may even do this with a runner on base. The runner sees the pitcher on the rubber as if he is going to pitch from the wind-up. The runner thinks the pitcher forgot that there is a runner on base. The runner decides to take advantage of the situation and breaks on the delivery. But there's no wind-up. The pitcher delivers the ball almost as quickly from this position as he does from the set position. It looks very odd. It looks wrong. But it's completely legal.

This isn't the hybrid position that was discused in the POE this year was it?

No, he positions his feet legally.

If I recall, the POE illegal position was to toe the rubber with your pivot foot as if you were going to pitcher from the wind-up position, but the free foot is in front of the rubber, as if to pitcher from the set position.

His free foot is behind the rubber. Totally legal. He just doesn't do any wind-up. No rocker step. Nothing. He just steps and throws.

There's no rule that says you have to use the same pitching motion each time. You don't have to have a wind-up. Usually, he throws a pitch out so the catcher can throw the runner out stealing.

Yeah, but he had to send me a private message so I could walk him through the process.