A couple of games ago, we had the following situation:
With a runner on second, and the pitcher in contact with the rubber, the runner on second breaks for third base. The pitcher steps toward third and makes a throw to the third baseman, attempting to throw out the runner. The umpire calls a balk for throwing to an unoccupied base.
Yet, consider the rule book:
8.05 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when--
(d) The pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play (emphasis added).
Wouldn't the pitcher's throw to third base in the above example not be a balk as he threw to third "for the purpose of making a play"? And if it is a balk, how does the "for the purposes of making a play" exception come into play?
I'm sure there are some umps and rule-savvy players who can shed some light on this situation.
Thanks,
Frank
-- Edited by Frank Montagano on Monday 24th of August 2015 02:58:46 PM
The ever-knowledgeable and helpful Mark Fitch provided the following in an email:
This should answer your question for any knowledgeable Coach:
OFF INTERP 452-422: HOPKINS: Same as OBR OI 454-422: "A pitcher may throw or feint a throw to an unoccupied base in an attempt to put out or drive back a runner. As long as the umpire judges that it is reasonable for the pitcher to believe he had a play ..., even though the runner stopped, it is a legal move"
The balk rule is so long and drawn out that it's enough to make your head spin, but this also supports Frank's interpretation (as well as Mark Fitch's):
Rule 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. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind: (a) Straddling the pitchers rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk. (b) With a runner on first base the pitcher may make a complete turn, without hesitating toward first, and throw to second. This is not to be interpreted as throwing to an unoccupied base.
*** Bolded text for emphasis
As with every rule; however, these determinations are in the "best judgement of the umpire" and I think it's difficult to put the job of determining "intent" on another human.
i believe there are somewhere like 16-19 BALKS in baseball, Last night I saw an ump make a balk call during a playoff game, with about 5-8 called all year long total usually the ump will give a warning , and he didn't even get an explanation on what the balk was , so probably did it again anyways , so interpretation is the key because most balk rules at least the 12-13 balks i commit are black and white, not like calling a ball or strike ie pitcher can not stop his motion 2x, pitcher must step and throw to the base he is throwing to, must come to a stop, must land foot within 45 degrees of the rubber ( tough with 2 umps) thats why lefties get away with it when making a pick off to first . cant move shoulders , hands or legs after coming set unless delivering the ball, must step off the rubber with appropriate foot, see with just the few examples there is really no gray area , but balks rarely get called until you get one you dont concern yourself with it but IT IS OUT THERE be careful
How can you drive back a runner to an unoccupied base? Obviously, I don't understand the rule.
This play happened to me years back. Runner at 2nd broke for 3rd. From the set, I stepped off and fired to 3rd to get the runner. After the play, the umpire told me I didn't need to step off. I could have just fired to 3rd from the set. He had told me it was a recent rule change. That was several years ago.
No, you're misinterpreting the scenario. In this case, the runner was on second and broke for third (which was unoccupied) before the pitcher made his move. Rather than "stepping off the rubber" and chasing the runner down, the pitcher threw the ball to the unoccupied third base, thereby "driving the runner" back to second which was previously occupied by said runner.
So, according to the ridiculously long interpretation of a what is and is not a balk, the balk should not have been called.
Which is strange, because I have been taught since little league (which was 30+ years ago now) that a pitcher must step off the rubber if they are to attempt to make a play on a runner.
Lefties don't step off the rubber when making a pickoff attempt at first, so, no, you don't have to step off. Same as a righty to 3rd or anyone who pivots on the pitchers plate and throws or feints to 2nd.
Tough leaving the judgment to the umpire to know whether or not a pitcher "believed he had a play.''
The operative word in the interpretation that Fitch provided is "reasonable." Is it reasonable for a pitcher to believe that he has a play at third base when the runner is breaking from second and is more than half-way to third? The answer would presumably be yes. And, in contradistinction, if the runner has done nothing more than take a normal lead off second? Clearly no.
Lefties don't step off the rubber when making a pickoff attempt at first, so, no, you don't have to step off. Same as a righty to 3rd or anyone who pivots on the pitchers plate and throws or feints to 2nd.
Tough leaving the judgment to the umpire to know whether or not a pitcher "believed he had a play.''
I understand your scenarios, but in each case the pitcher is making a move to an occupied base which was not the case here.
And yes, I agree that this just further illustrates how difficult it must be to be an umpire. All of these ridiculously long rules you have to know inside and out and on top of that so many of them are left to your interpretation of player intent.
In the situation I outlined above, there is no issue of the pitcher's intent. The question, rather, is whether it was reasonable for him to believe that he had a play at third base.
If the runner is breaking toward third base and is more than half-way there, I would submit that it was, in fact, reasonable for the pitcher to believe that he had a play at third base. No balk.
Gosh, it's almost as if you have to be a lawyer to figure this stuff out!
