balk or not

[phil447]

Runner on 2nd. Right handed pitcher in set position. Runner leads off and breaks for 3rd. Pitcher steps toward 3rd and throws. Runner retreated back to 2nd. Offensive coach wants a balk for throwing to an unoccupied base. I called no balk because pitcher with the intent to make a play. Who's right, please? Thank you.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by phil447

Runner on 2nd. Right handed pitcher in set position. Runner leads off and breaks for 3rd. Pitcher steps toward 3rd and throws. Runner retreated back to 2nd. Offensive coach wants a balk for throwing to an unoccupied base. I called no balk because pitcher with the intent to make a play. Who's right, please? Thank you.

FED you're right.
OBR, with changed wording I think you're right.
The pitcher can throw or feint to an unoccupied base for the purpose of making a play.
NCAA I'll have to check or some else will chime in.

[phil447]

Thanks, Jim. I appreciate your response.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by phil447

Thanks, Jim. I appreciate your response.

I think my OBR response needs to be modified. In your sit F1 threw to 3B to drive back the runner. I don't think he could have feinted there in OBR.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by phil447

Thanks, Jim. I appreciate your response.

Found the NCAA interp.

14. 9-1a—May a LHP lift his stride leg straight up without breaking the plane of the back edge of the pitcher’s plate and turn inside and throw to second base in an attempt to retire a runner from first base who is stealing on the movement?
A pitcher may throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to retire an advancing runner. As long as the motion is one continuous motion, it is legal. If the pitcher stops at the top (where his lower leg and thigh make a 90-degree angle) before he turns inside, a balk shall be called. The stopping and restarting constitute two moves and not one continuous motion.
A balk would also be called if the runner from first bluffsand goes back to first and the pitcher follows thru with the throw to second.

[DG]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I think my OBR response needs to be modified. In your sit F1 threw to 3B to drive back the runner. I don't think he could have feinted there in OBR.

Interesting. 8.05(b) says he can't feint to 3b, but 8.05(d) says he can't feint a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play. Since the intent of 8.05(b) was to remove the 3rd to 1st move, with runners on 1st and 3rd, I suspect he can still feint to an unoccupied base for purpose of making a play (ie drive back a runner) on an advancing runner from 2b.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by DG

Interesting. 8.05(b) says he can't feint to 3b, but 8.05(d) says he can't feint a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play. Since the intent of 8.05(b) was to remove the 3rd to 1st move, with runners on 1st and 3rd, I suspect he can still feint to an unoccupied base for purpose of making a play (ie drive back a runner) on an advancing runner from 2b.

Thus why I said "I think". Some have simplified that 3B is the new 1B. So would F1 have to throw to 3B as he would to 1B, in one case throwing ahead of an advancing runner and in the other behind.

[DG]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Thus why I said "I think". Some have simplified that 3B is the new 1B. So would F1 have to throw to 3B as he would to 1B, in one case throwing ahead of an advancing runner and in the other behind.

To be accurate, you said "I don't think". My excerpts from the rules makes me think he can throw or feint to unoccupied 3b for purpose of making a play or driving back a runner, who logically, would be advancing from 2b, not at 3b already.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by DG

To be accurate, you said "I don't think". My excerpts from the rules makes me think he can throw or feint to unoccupied 3b for purpose of making a play or driving back a runner, who logically, would be advancing from 2b, not at 3b already.

To be more accurate, I both said I think and I don't think. I would like to think that you are right and MLB/OBR did not consider unintended consequences.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by DG

To be accurate, you said "I don't think". My excerpts from the rules makes me think he can throw or feint to unoccupied 3b for purpose of making a play or driving back a runner, who logically, would be advancing from 2b, not at 3b already.

This might be a balk for feinting to 3B with a runner going, or might not:

Blackman advances on balk | MLB.com

[DG]

Originally Posted by umpjim

This might be a balk for feinting to 3B with a runner going, or might not:

Blackman advances on balk | MLB.com

I saw this game on TV. After the video we see there was much discussion about whether his non pivot passed the rubber, thus the balk when he threw to 3b. And of course he did not feint to 3b to drive a runner.

The second video, I don't see a balk.

And lastly, announcers are inaccurate, as usual.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by DG

I saw this game on TV. After the video we see there was much discussion about whether his non pivot passed the rubber, thus the balk when he threw to 3b. And of course he did not feint to 3b to drive a runner.

The second video, I don't see a balk.

And lastly, announcers are inaccurate, as usual.

The step and throw was after the first step. The balk was either a balk for feinting to 2B without a proper step or a feint to 3B.
I don't know what second video you're referencing.

[Tim C]

"The balk was either a balk for feinting to 2B without a proper step "

It is STILL impossible to balk to an occupied second base.

Tee

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Tim C

It is STILL impossible to balk to an occupied second base.

Tee

According to the Dodger feed which I think was Orel Hershiser, they picked up from the field mike that Nelson said the pitcher did not make a legal step.