[UmpJM]

Tim,

The reason I found Mr. Paronto's "3rd to 1st move" analogy so off point as a rationale for supporting the legality of the jab step move under FED rules is twofold.

First, it doesn't address in any way the concern expressed by those who believe the move should be balked. Namely, that the pivot foot comes off the rubber before the free foot starts a step to the base.

A pitcher's pivot foot always comes off the rubber when he delivers a pitch, throws a pick-off, or makes a (legal) feint to a base. Once he completes the legal pitch/throw/feint he is no longer "in contact" and is no longer constrained by the rules that constrain an "in contact" pitcher.

So, I don't think that those who (erroneously) believe that the jab step should be balked think that a pitcher's pivot foot can't leave the rubber to the "front side" on a pick-off - they just think it can't be the first part of the move.

Second, it's an especially unconvincing argument in the context of FED rules because the FED rule makers, in yet another display of the "rugged individualism" for which they are known, explicitly allow the pitcher to remain in contact with the rubber on the third to first move. (Ref.: FED 6.2.4c).

Personally, I think the jab step move is legal because it does not violate the letter of the rules and because it provides the defense with no unintended advantage. Since the only thing a RHP can (legally) do after making a jab step towards 3B is throw a pick-off to 1B, and only after subsequently making a legal step with his free foot, the runner's "rights" in having some forewarning (of an impending pick-off throw) intended by the rules are properly served.

Nonetheless, good discussion.

JM