Put it in quotes, call it suspect, but my logic was right. Backward was underlined, he said that the pitcher failed to
legally disengage, calling the action (or motion) illegal, saying the intent was to deceive the runner.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
My wife and I have this agreement. When we disagree on something and one of us is proved right, the person who is wrong is required to say, "You were right, I was wrong."
Quote:
Originally posted by cbfoulds
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Hensley
The play that began this thread was presented to Jim Evans, owner of the Evans Academy of Professional Umpiring and, I would hope, a universally respected authority on the rules of baseball and their proper interpretation. Here is his response to the play:
The pitcher is required to step backward off the rubber when he disengages as specified in 8.01 (b). Deception is acceptable as long as it is mechanically legal. (Otherwise, how would a pitcher ever pickoff a runner?) In the move you described, this would be "deliberately deceiving the base runner" as expressed in the italicized case notes following 8.05. This is one in which you explain that the pitcher failed to legally disengage. Instead of stepping backward off the rubber, as required, he raised his foot straight up in an effort to deceive the runner. Not only is the action illegal, but this is where you get to play mindreader and tell the manager that you believe the pitcher's intent was to deliberately deceive (this time illegally). You are covered in the rule book with the case notes.
The thoughts expressed in those case notes are often misused but this is one example of when you can rightfully apply them.
I hope this interpretation from a noted authority provides enlightenment for those who have so steadfastly and confidently (dare I say arrogantly?) dismissed arguments that, it now appears, had quite a bit of merit and validity after all.
|
Arrogantly? I don't think so.
Early on, I said I would accept recognised or General Authority. Evans certainly falls into that category.
That said, I can't figure out how/ where Jim would make the distinction between those cases where, as he says, the "deception" language in the case notes is misused - and this case. However, even I am not cocky enough to argue with Jim Evans on rules interpretation.
Kaliix's "logic" is still suspect, but I can accept that the answer here is "because it just is" a deceptive balk.
|