Circle Violation Clarification - Pitcher hand positioning

[MTR]

Impossible, IMO, to name every thing that is or isn't. I teach this as the "reasonable man" theory.

Short version, if any action by the pitcher would/should/could make a reasonable person react, then the runner has the right to react. If the umpire believes any action by the pitcher is solely intended to make the runner react, then the runner has the right to react to that action.

I teach it in a similar manner, but in my version, the "reasonable man" is always the umpire since it is his/her judgment by which the rule is applied. I tell the umpire that if they see the pitcher act in a manner which makes them feel that s/he needs to be prepared to make a call, then it is enough for the runner to react in the same manner.

And, yes, the umpire should always be prepared to make a call if necessary, but the umpire will know to what I am referring when s/he feels it.

[Anti-Clone]

Thanks for the ASA rule. Appreciate your help.

Just remember that the Rules Supplements are not Playing Rules.

They are intended to explain, define and interpret the playing rules, not supersede them. In case of any conflict, the actual rule will trump the supplements. Sometimes, when discussing a rule with many possible scenarios (like this one, where it would be impossible to precisely quantify every possible action by a pitcher that might constitute making a play), they do tend to oversimplify or generalize the explanations.

I think this is such a case. Using ANY action by the pitcher that a runner reacts to is just too broad an umbrella.

The R/S does not contradict the Rule. It expands it. So there isn't a conflict.

[Bretman]

The R/S does not contradict the Rule. It expands it. So there isn't a conflict.

If a R/S can't supersede a playing rule, then I don't see how it can expand (add to,modify or revise) it either.

[Anti-Clone]

The R/S does not contradict the Rule. It expands it. So there isn't a conflict.

If a R/S can't supersede a playing rule, then I don't see how it can expand (add to,modify or revise) it either.

Easy: It clarifies it. It doesn't contradict it.

This is more proof that ASA has screwed up royally when the changed the definition of "making a play."

Answer this for me, please. How can ASA say that making a fake throw is considered making a play? If they are going to define making a play as an attempt by the defense to retire an offensive player, how could they argue that faking a throw is making a play? How is it possible to have an attempt to retire an offensive player if the ball is 30 feet away in a player's hand and she never throws it? It's absolutely absurd.

[tcannizzo]

The R/S does not contradict the Rule. It expands it. So there isn't a conflict.

If a R/S can't supersede a playing rule, then I don't see how it can expand (add to,modify or revise) it either.

Easy: It clarifies it. It doesn't contradict it.

This is more proof that ASA has screwed up royally when the changed the definition of "making a play."

Answer this for me, please. How can ASA say that making a fake throw is considered making a play? If they are going to define making a play as an attempt by the defense to retire an offensive player, how could they argue that faking a throw is making a play? How is it possible to have an attempt to retire an offensive player if the ball is 30 feet away in a player's hand and she never throws it? It's absolutely absurd.

Are you serious? Ever seen a player picked off that originated from a fake throw?
If yes, then your post is absurd.
If no, then your post is absurd.

[Battle]

The R/S does not contradict the Rule. It expands it. So there isn't a conflict.

If a R/S can't supersede a playing rule, then I don't see how it can expand (add to,modify or revise) it either.

Easy: It clarifies it. It doesn't contradict it.

This is more proof that ASA has screwed up royally when the changed the definition of "making a play."

Answer this for me, please. How can ASA say that making a fake throw is considered making a play? If they are going to define making a play as an attempt by the defense to retire an offensive player, how could they argue that faking a throw is making a play? How is it possible to have an attempt to retire an offensive player if the ball is 30 feet away in a player's hand and she never throws it? It's absolutely absurd.

Are you serious? Ever seen a player picked off that originated from a fake throw?
If yes, then your post is absurd.
If no, then your post is absurd.

Can a put out be made on a fake throw only?

[Bretman]

Answer this for me, please. How can ASA say that making a fake throw is considered making a play? If they are going to define making a play as an attempt by the defense to retire an offensive player, how could they argue that faking a throw is making a play? How is it possible to have an attempt to retire an offensive player if the ball is 30 feet away in a player's hand and she never throws it? It's absolutely absurd.

Easy: For the purpose of the look back rule, and that rule only, the "fake play" is the lone exception. It is a special case that applies only in one special circumstance.

[Anti-Clone]

Are you serious? Ever seen a player picked off that originated from a fake throw?
If yes, then your post is absurd.
If no, then your post is absurd.

Ooooh, so now a "play" is defined as "everything that occurs prior to the actual attempt to execute an out."

I see. I'll keep that in mind when I hit the field later...

[ontheblack]

Clone, how is the runner supposed to know whether or not its a "fake" play?

[MTR]

The R/S does not contradict the Rule. It expands it. So there isn't a conflict.

Since ASA clearly and specifically defines "play", it may. Nowhere can I find anything states the offense determines what a play is.