![]() |
Quote:
PLAY: R1 & R2 at 1st and 2nd. Batter hits a base clearing triple. The defense believes that R1 missed 2nd and that R2 missed 3rd. They throw the ball to 2nd, tag the bag, and claim that R1 missed 2nd. Then, they throw the ball to 3rd and claim that R2 missed 3rd. Should the umpire disallow the second appeal (at 3rd) because there was an intervening play - one of the criteria for disallowing an appeal? It would seem that would be the case if an appeal was considered "a play". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
If it will make Bob feel better, consider the NCAA rule 8-6b(10): It is not a balk for a pitcher, while in contact with the rubber (does not step back), to throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making an appeal play.
For OBR, consider 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. I think that nearly always all the players recognize an appeal which is being made from the mound. |
Quote:
It's "not considered" ONLY for the purpose of making multiple appeals. It's really that simple. |
Quote:
So, to be safe, I recommend that a pitcher step back off the rubber prior to making a throw to a base for an appeal. |
Quote:
MLBUM: It is NOT a balk for the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, to throw to an unoccupied base IF it is for the purpose of making an appeal play. (Note that the pitcher does not have to step back off the rubber to make an appeal play.) The emphasis is in the book. |
Why is it so tough for people to simply let go of the fact that you can throw to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play or making an appeal?
It baffles me. Open the rule book. Is it lying? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:54pm. |