[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

OK, fair enough, I understand the confusion now. I've fixed my original post. My explanation seems to clarify what I meant, but I see your disagreement now.

The ball was out of the GLOVE hand before he stepped back - not a legal disengagement - the foot movement was not part of a disengagement, therefore he's not disengaged.

I don't think umpires get this nitpicky on balks. I still maintain that this happens all the time (Not necessarily at the MLB level) without a throw and no one balks it.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This illustrates why you don't understand that. A) this cannot be a legal disengagement - he has to step off BEFORE beginning to throw for a legal disengagement. B) Define Jump Turn and Jab Step ... using only the rulebook to do so. Good luck. Do you see a rule that states where the pivot foot must go to be a jab step? (PS - how could you call this a legal disengagement AND a jab step - it cannot be both... you have to throw after a jab step because you are NOT disengaged.)

I understand what the rule says, but how it is actually enforced is different in my opinion. If we balked every pitcher every time they made ANY movement before their entire pivot foot landed entirely on the ground behind the rubber, we would be ran out of town.

I'm not saying it is both a legal disengagement and a jab step. I'm saying if you want to call it something other than disengaging, it is closer to being a jab step than a jump turn like some people were calling it earlier.

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I am in total agreement that the slow motion analysis of this has done us a disservice. While it has created debate, healthy at times, it hasn't really helped us from a training perspective. Bottom line, the professionals on the field made a call, maybe that is our training for this situation??

I also agree that because there was no clearly discernible pause and break of hands when backward step off the rubber occurred, we don't have a 2 base award. Again, clearly this is my opinion on this, others mileage will and has varied.

Fair enough. I know we don't take intent into consideration very much, especially with regard to pitching rules, but I think Cain was intending to disengage here. I realize that ultimately is irrelevant, but I thought it was interesting to note. That may have looked different in real time with no replay, so I can see why they only awarded a base.