[David Emerling]

To add to the discussion:

Isn't it true that whenever the rulebook uses the term "disengage the rubber" it always means stepping BACK off the rubber?

There's a difference between "not in contact with the rubber" and "disengaging the rubber."

For instance, a right-handed pitcher is almost always "not in contact with the rubber" when he makes a pickoff attempt at 1st. Yet, for the purposes of applying the rule, since he did not actually "disengage the rubber" (i.e. step BACK), the throw is considered to have occurred from in contact. Apparently, FED doesn't make this distinction - according to the casebook ruling.

In the case we're discussing, the pitcher never really steps BACK and disengages the rubber. So, if we're going to apply the same standard, whether the pitcher breaks contact with the rubber while throwing to 3rd or not, he never really steps BACK and legally "disengages the rubber."

I still maintain the rules that address the issue of whether the pitcher has disengaged the rubber or not assume that the pitcher is starting from one of two legal pitching positions. When a pitcher places his foot on the rubber, he MUST assume either the wind-up or set position.

Once the pitcher has made a pickoff attempt, or a fake attempt, anything he does after that cannot be initiated from either of the two legal pitching positions. So, whether his foot is actually in contact with the rubber or not when making the NEXT play, it can hardly be governed by the rules of the pitcher being IN CONTACT with the rubber.

In my opinion.

Yet, I realize, the FED ruling on this caseplay runs counter to my thinking.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN