F3 foot in foul territory
 

Getting ready for a game the other night (LL Junior District, 90' diamond)

One of my partners is approached by this old guy who is well known in the baseball circles in this town. He wants to know if LL is different in requiring the first baseman to have both feet in fair territory.

My partner turns to me to ask. I explain that, yes it's the rule but umpires don't generally enforce it unless there is a complaint.

Am I wrong in this?

The old guy said he knew LL rules are different than Legion. Sigh. Not in that one. Or most of the rules.

Rita

No. You are not wrong.

Time! Coaches, please instruct all your players to be in fair territory at the time of pitch. Any violations and each player must go directly to jail, they can not pass go and can not collect $200.00. Except for you Mr. Catcher, your job is to stay here and protect my butt from getting hit. Play on!

Interestingly, the old wording has changed in this year's MLBUM (retyped so I abbreviated some of the words):

"OBR rule 4.03 provides that when the ball is put in play at the start of or during a game, all fielders other than the catcher shall be on fair territory. In particular, when holding a runner on 1B, F3 shall position himself with both feet in fair territory. There is no penalty specified for violation other than F3 shall be instructed to keep both feet in fair territory if brought to the attention of the umpire, or-if blatant or recurring violations-upon immediate direction of the umpire. If a player, after so directed by the umpire, blatantly refuses to comply, the player is subject to ejection."

Don't know exactly what nuance they wanted to change.

And don't ya love the coaches that believe in the myth that the penalty for 4.03(a) "catcher's balk" applies to 4.03. "No, coach, F3's foot in foul territory was not a balk."

Except that NFHS Baseball Rules allow for a defensive player other than the Catcher to have one foot in Foul Territory at the Time of the Pitch.

MTD, Sr.

Well, if we're going to describe FED rules, if the fielder doesn't have one foot in fair territory at the time of the pitch, it is an illegal pitch (See 1-1-4).

So that's why I sometimes see 8 players lined up along the foul line. I was wondering about that.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

True, but (nearly) impossible to call in 2-man. If you see it before the pitch, you fix it. At the TOP, no umpire is looking at F3's feet.

In my first year, maybe fifth game ever, I called a balk on the 9 y.o. F3 "because I had read it in the rule book."

That is the last time I ever called it. Ahh, the 90's.

Sigh....
Yes folks, I know we aren't looking at F3's feet at the time of the pitch. That's why it doesn't matter if the FED rule is one or two feet in fair territory, regardless of MTD, Sr's post.

If I had a nickel for every coach who knew the phrase "catcher's balk" at all, I'd have ... a nickel.

To begin with I am only familiar with OBR. But if you read the section almost quoted above by umpjim , the rule requires all players except F2 to be in fair territory when time is called in , not at time of pitch. There is a difference.

What possible advantage is F3 getting by having a foot in foul territory? (None, of course).

So, don't worry about it.

If a coach wishes to make an issue of it, feel free to start inspecting his players uniforms for uniformity. Oh, and that coaches box just got a big wall drawn around it, too.

The MLBUM throws a lot of words to say "Don't worry about it".

Hold on just one minute "Pardner". Just what do you mean regardless of my post? I just stated the NFHS rule, nothing more, nothing less.

MTD, Sr.

If you had a nickel for every umpire who thinks he knows what the 'catcher's balk' describes, but really doesn't, you'd have several thousand dollars.

What umpire doesn't have the imagination to figure out that it describes 4.03(a)...the only way F2 can cause a balk...he'd should still be nickel-less.

It's not the only way - see 7.07.

I am old enough to know better than to use absolutes when in haste. Good catch.

True!

You just demonstrated my point.

In 4.03(a), the pitcher has committed a balk. Whether the catcher "caused" it is immaterial to the fact that the infraction was committed by the pitcher

7.07 is the so-called "catcher's balk", wherein the pitcher has not committed a balk, but is charged with one anyway due to illegal action by the catcher.

Five cents, please.

Sounds like six of one, half a dozen of the other. In both cases, the pitcher should not release the ball if he sees the catcher violating the rule. But not releasing would still be a balk. Good luck with that. In 7.07 if he has already released the ball it's unfair that he gets the balk. OBR doesn't care. They need a way to advance all runners.
But, back to the real world.

The catcher flat out causes a 4.03( a ) balk. If the pitcher pitches after the catcher leaves the box it's a balk. If the pitcher stops because the catcher left the box, it's a balk. Either way - the catcher caused it. It is impossible for the pitcher to avoid it. Ain't his fault.

All (ALL) balks are charged to the pitcher.

And, BTW, the 4.03(a) one is the one called a catcher's balk. Most folks never heard of 7.07.

I disagree. FWIW, if I, or any real non-internet umpire I come across says "catcher's balk", we are referring to 4.03a. And FWIW, I can't recall 7.07 ever happening in a game I umpired or watched.

Another fifteen cents...
 

I know you are, and you're referring to the wrong situation.

The entire notion of calling it the "catcher's balk" is because the pitcher is charged with one, when he didn't commit one, due to an illegal action by the catcher. That's what happens in 7.07; that's not what happens in 4.03(a).

Correct. Even though the catcher caused it, the pitcher is penalized for HIS OWN actions. In 7.07, the pitcher never balks; he delivers a legal pitch. The catcher then commits an illegal act causing the pitcher to be charged with a balk when he didn't commit one. Thus, the "catcher's balk"--the catcher is literally the one whose actions are penalized by charging a balk to the pitcher, who did NOTHING illegal.
Correct. But in only one instance is one is charged to him when he didn't actually commit one. What rule explains when that happens? (Hint: It isn't 4.03(a).)

Improperly, by the ill-informed masses, including most umpires, absolutely.

Utterly impossible under 7.07--the catcher doesn't violate the rule until after the pitch has been legally delivered. I have never seen 4.03(a) enforced in a professional baseball game, even though I've observed the "violation" scores of times.

Just because it may not be part of your umpiring experiences doesn't mean others' are equally limited. I have invoked 7.07 more times than I have 4.03(a). I'm ashamed that when I was relatively new, I onced balked a pitcher under 4.03(a). I never repeated that ignorant mistake.