Jump to content

Ask MrUmp1 your rules question.


Recommended Posts

Because he is technically throwing to an unoccupied bag which is considered a balk unless he steps off the back of the rubber. When he steps off the back of the rubber he is then considered an infielder and can throw to which ever base he chooses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding, depends on umpire. If the runner actually attempts a steal, it is legal to throw ahead. If a strong fake steal, it can be called a balk. Umpire has final say on if he believes it was an attempt to steal or not. Probably best to discuss with umps before the game. The "judgement" rule wins every time!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turning and throwing on a pick off move is one thing. What usually happens is when the runner breaks, the pitcher steps off the back and maybe runs at him. If you just spin off of the rubber and run it is a balk because you did not clearly step off the back and disengage the rubber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when in doubt read the rule yourself. there are a lot of umpires that don't know the rules also.

 

ART. 4 . . . Balk. If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a

pitcher while he is touching the pitcher’s plate is a balk:

a. any feinting toward the batter or first base, or any dropping of the ball

(even though accidental) and the ball does not cross a foul line (6-1-4);

b. failing to step with the non-pivot foot directly toward a base (occupied or

unoccupied) when throwing or feinting there in an attempt to put out, or

drive back a runner; or throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when

it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;

c. making an illegal pitch from any position (6-1, 6-2-1a-d);

d. failing to pitch to the batter in a continuous motion immediately after any

movement of any part of the body such as he habitually uses in his delivery;

1. If the pitcher, with a runner on base, stops or hesitates in his delivery

because the batter steps out of the box (a) with one foot or (b) with

both feet or (c) holds up his hand to request “Time,” it shall not be a

balk. In (a) and (c), there is no penalty on either the batter or the pitcher.

The umpire shall call “Time” and begin play anew. In (b), a strike

shall be called on the batter for violation of 7-3-1. In (a), (b) and (c), if

the pitcher legally delivers the ball, it shall be called a strike and the ball

remains live. Thus, two strikes are called on the batter in (b). If the

umpire judges the batter’s action to be a deliberate attempt to create a

balk, he will penalize according to 3-3-1o.

e. taking a hand off the ball while in a set position (6-1-3), unless he pitches

to the batter or throws to a base or he steps toward and feints a throw to

second or third base as in (b); or

f. failing to pitch to the batter when the entire non-pivot foot passes behind

the perpendicular plane of the back edge of the pitcher’s plate, except when

feinting or throwing to second base in an attempt to put out a runner

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can step with your non-pivot (front) foot toward any unoccupied base (2nd or 3rd) as long as you continue on to make the throw to the base, and there is someone attempting to steal it.  I've seen this done both in high school and at college.  Not a balk and clearly stated in 4b.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times have you heard a coach or a 1st baseman tell the pitcher to step off when a runner breaks early.   Pitcher must disengage the rubber if runner is stealing second before throwing to 2nd base.  Most throw behind the runner to 1st ( base that is occupied).    Balk  in my book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason coaches say step off is in case of the runner faking a steal.  If you throw to an unoccupied base when no one is making an attempt to steal then it is a balk.  Please re-read the quoted rule book below if you don't believe me.

 

failing to step with the non-pivot foot directly toward a base (occupied or

unoccupied) when throwing or feinting there in an attempt to put out, or

drive back a runner; or throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when

it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ART. 4 . . . Balk. If there is a runner or runners, any of the following acts by a

pitcher while he is touching the pitcher’s plate is a balk:

 

b. failing to step with the non-pivot foot directly toward a base (occupied or

unoccupied) when throwing or feinting there in an attempt to put out, or

drive back a runner; or throwing or feinting to any unoccupied base when

it is not an attempt to put out or drive back a runner;

 

The above is a direct quote from the rule book.  If you step with the non-pivot(front) foot directly toward a base (even unoccupied) when attempting to put out or drive back a runner it is not a balk.  The reason that coaches tell players to step off is because if someone leaves early but doesn't attempt to take the base it is a balk due to the fact there is then no runner to put out of drive back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • KF89 unpinned and pinned this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined



  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...