Heard tonight on an MLB radio broadcast that MLB is considering a rule change for next year that would make the "step to 3rd, throw to 1st" move a balk.
What are your thoughts?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by RPD:
Heard tonight on an MLB radio broadcast that MLB is considering a rule change for next year that would make the "step to 3rd, throw to 1st" move a balk.
What are your thoughts?
It is beyond consideration. IT was considered for this year but the players union exercised their right to delay it a year. They cannot delay it again. It is a certainty for next year.
The rule will specifically require a pitcher to properly disengage before feinting to any base. I like the consistency and equal protection it offers to runners.
Wow! I thought it was just the 1st to third move. If it as Jimmy states (Disengage before any feint) it is a BIG change. Will FED follow the OBR change?
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The rule will specifically require a pitcher to properly disengage before feinting to any base.
And a spin move to 2nd without a throw will be a balk. This should be fun.
How long do FED and NCAA normally take to incorporate an OBR change? How likely are they to adopt a significant change like this at all?
quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
How long do FED and NCAA normally take to incorporate an OBR change? How likely are they to adopt a significant change like this at all?
NCAA is likely, and this change would be a quick one I think. FED is anybody's guess, maybe never.
quote:Originally posted by dash_riprock:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
The rule will specifically require a pitcher to properly disengage before feinting to any base.
And a spin move to 2nd without a throw will be a balk. This should be fun.
Does this also mean the inside move to second without a throw will be a balk as well, or is that a legal disengagement of the rubber?
It will indeed be a balk. That's what I meant by spin move to 2nd.
Just to clarify, by inside move I meant the leg lift and turn to second, as opposed to a jump-spin to second.
Basically a feint to a base from the rubber will be dead. I think they are fixing something that isn't broken and breaking it in the process.
quote:Originally posted by NW Knights07:
Just to clarify, by inside move I meant the leg lift and turn to second, as opposed to a jump-spin to second.
They are treated the same.
quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Basically a feint to a base from the rubber will be dead. I think they are fixing something that isn't broken and breaking it in the process.
And, while I have much respect for Michael, I think the change is over due. The third to first move never included a legal disengagement and unlike the jump turn, it was not specifically exempted. The change will bring consistency to pitchers, runners and umpires.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Basically a feint to a base from the rubber will be dead. I think they are fixing something that isn't broken and breaking it in the process.
And, while I have much respect for Michael, I think the change is over due. The third to first move never included a legal disengagement and unlike the jump turn, it was not specifically exempted. The change will bring consistency to pitchers, runners and umpires.
Equally respectfully, the 3-1 move was an engaged move to third, no different than stepping to second, and the move to first required him be off the rubber on the original step. Fed is the one with the screwy rule that allows him to stay engaged. By getting rid of the 3-1 move you are taking out other feints that are good solid methods to hold runners.
quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
Basically a feint to a base from the rubber will be dead. I think they are fixing something that isn't broken and breaking it in the process.
And, while I have much respect for Michael, I think the change is over due. The third to first move never included a legal disengagement and unlike the jump turn, it was not specifically exempted. The change will bring consistency to pitchers, runners and umpires.
Equally respectfully, the 3-1 move was an engaged move to third, no different than stepping to second, and the move to first required him be off the rubber on the original step. Fed is the one with the screwy rule that allows him to stay engaged. By getting rid of the 3-1 move you are taking out other feints that are good solid methods to hold runners.
This shouldn't surprise us, Michael, the rule book has always been slanted toward protecting the offense, at least for the past 100 years or so.
This change would slant the rule to the offense even more.
Stealing third will be easier and the 1st & 3rd situation will yield more steals of 2nd with the runner at 1st able to leave on the leg lift and not commit to home.
Frankly, I don't like it.
Stealing third will be easier and the 1st & 3rd situation will yield more steals of 2nd with the runner at 1st able to leave on the leg lift and not commit to home.
Frankly, I don't like it.
Some at MLB see this as fixing a broken practice. In the opinion of the rules committe, the 3-1 move, which allowed for a fake to first, the pitcher never "legally" disengaged to make that fake to first.
Offense sells tickets.
I think it's a great change. It will increase action in the game. More steals, less feints, more throws, more real plays.
Offense sells tickets.
I think it's a great change. It will increase action in the game. More steals, less feints, more throws, more real plays.
The step to third takes his foot off the rubber, if they aren't doing that then make the umpires call the balk, don't change the rule.
I'm trying to picture myself (at my desk in my office) faking to third and then picking to first without disengaging and it isn't happening.
I agree with Michael, if they don't disengage, make that the balk otherwise leave it alone.
I agree with Michael, if they don't disengage, make that the balk otherwise leave it alone.
It already is a balk, just insist the umpires call it. The simple way to fix it is to rewrite that one passage to be clearer. Write the rule to reflect the interp and all is good. By taking all feints to bases from the rubber away is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, surgery with a chainsaw or whatever metaphor you wish.
quote:Originally posted by Michael S. Taylor:
The step to third takes his foot off the rubber, if they aren't doing that then make the umpires call the balk, don't change the rule.
That is not, according to the rule makers, a legal disengagement. Stepping back of the rubber is.
quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
I'm trying to picture myself (at my desk in my office) faking to third and then picking to first without disengaging and it isn't happening.
I agree with Michael, if they don't disengage, make that the balk otherwise leave it alone.
Really? You see pitchers legally disengage during the 3-1 move? I never have.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
I'm trying to picture myself (at my desk in my office) faking to third and then picking to first without disengaging and it isn't happening.
I agree with Michael, if they don't disengage, make that the balk otherwise leave it alone.
Really? You see pitchers legally disengage during the 3-1 move? I never have.
Really? So, if on the feint to third, R1 breaks, the pitcher can't do anything, because the pivot foot didn't leave the rubber backwards?
Disengagement is irrelevant if there's a feint, per 8.01.
quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:
Really? You see pitchers legally disengage during the 3-1 move? I never have.
I come here to learn about the rules. You guys all know I'm not an umpire, so I view these discussions as learning opportunities. In that spirit, I think we're discussing the following rules
Rule 8.05(c) Comment: ...It is possible, with runners on first and third, for the pitcher to step toward third and not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base. This is legal. However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion “wheels” and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.
8.01(b) The Set Position... From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher’s plate with his pivot foot.
Jimmy's quote above uses the key words "legally disengage". In my simple mind, disengagement is the foot no longer contacting the rubber which in hindsight doesn't mean its "legal" to simply come off the rubber because you stepped towards third and needed to move your pivot foot off the rubber to throw to first. Again, I'm not an umpire and I don't have case books, so I searched OBR for "disengage" and it's only mentioned a few times, but with no definition. I searched "step off", "plate" (that takes a while), "feint" and still got no help.
From 8.01 (b) I could infer that many commonly accepted "feints" are illegal, which I think is Jimmy's point. Why is the first and third move or the pivot to second considered legal now?
I appreciate these discussions and the time you all put in to educate the simple fans like myself.
If its any consolation, I called Tommy Hunter's (Orioles vs. Red Sox) "step off and throw a pitch" balk real time tonight, so I'm learning something...
quote:Originally posted by Matt13:quote:Originally posted by Jimmy03:quote:Originally posted by JMoff:
I'm trying to picture myself (at my desk in my office) faking to third and then picking to first without disengaging and it isn't happening.
I agree with Michael, if they don't disengage, make that the balk otherwise leave it alone.
Really? You see pitchers legally disengage during the 3-1 move? I never have.
Really? So, if on the feint to third, R1 breaks, the pitcher can't do anything, because the pivot foot didn't leave the rubber backwards?
Disengagement is irrelevant if there's a feint, per 8.01.
And that argument was heard when the change was discussed, and whether we like it or not, it lost out. The rules makers decided that to legally disengage for the purpose of feinting to a base, a step back off the rubber was required.
One can either accept the change or flail against windmills.