The best I can tell, here’s the tally:
One Base Camp (11): Maven, UES, Welpe, Steven Tyler, Bob Jenkins, MD Longhorn, RPatrino, Rich, Mrumpiresir, DG, Jicecone. (Notice any big dogs?)
Two Base Camp (7): Lapopez (me), RPumpire, ZM1283, Umpjim, Manny A, JohnnyG08, Dash_Ripock.
Unknown (1): Rich Ives
I only need to sway three people, and there are seven days left until the election!
I hope I can resurrect this thread that you’ll see I am very passionate about. Since I am in the two base camp, I obviously don’t agree with the arguments of the one base camp. I am more dissatisfied with the arguments put forth by the two base camp since, if for no other reason, not ONE person cited OBR 8.01(e)!
Play: The Cain pickoff/overthrow.
Ruling: Two Base Award
Rule Basis: OBR 8.01(e), and NOTHING ELSE.
Rule 8.01(e): If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.
I.
Disengagement
Those in the one base camp go to great lengths to assert that Cain did not legally disengage. Guess what, I completely agree. Let me assert this very definitively: CAIN DID NOT DISENGAGE! Why does the one base camp conclude from that that Cain remained a pitcher, and as such, when he threw the ball out of play, a one base award is appropriate? Please cite a rule and show me where the following logic is faulty.
Based on Maven’s statements, I think he would agree with how I interpret the use of the word “disengage” as used in OBR 8.01 and 8.01(a). (That word is not used anywhere else in OBR!) Maven likes to clarify by adding the word “legally.” I have no problem with that and use “disengage” and “legally disengage” interchangeably. “Disengage" refers to the act of a pitcher stepping back behind the rubber with his pivot foot first AND dropping his hands. Cain didn’t drop his hands, so Cain didn’t legally disengage. However, it’s IRRELEVANT! Whether Cain disengaged is irrelevant to 8.01(e). To say that, in order to apply 8.01(e), a pitcher must legally disengage, is too restrictive. Notice 8.01(e) doesn’t even use the word “disengage.” A pitcher must merely step back for 8.01(e) to apply. Stepping back is only one component of legally disengaging. It is not necessary for the pitcher to drop his hands to invoke 8.01(e), only that he steps back. The question of dropping his hands is only relevant to determine if he legally disengaged. In other words, a pitcher may legally disengage and be subject to 8.01(e) but it’s not necessary that he legally disengage.
To determine if 8.01(e) applies to Cain requires no consideration as to whether Cain legally disengaged. The only thing we have to consider is whether Cain stepped back. This is not to say that 8.01(e) doesn’t apply to a pitcher who does legally disengage. On the contrary, since such a pitcher steps back, 8.01(e) also applies to him. It is faulty reasoning to infer that because Cain did not disengage, he maintained his status as a pitcher. Cain did not disengage and he STILL lost his status since he stepped back, as 8.01(e) stipulates.
II.
Jump-Turn
Those in the one base camp go to great lengths to assert that Cain executed a jump turn. Guess what, I completely agree. Correct me if I am wrong but this is as I understand the one base camp: “A jump turn is a move ‘from the rubber,’ and as such, the pitcher remains a pitcher, even if the pitcher executes a jump turn in which he first moves his pivot foot behind the rubber.” Is that right? So, even a jump turn that involves first stepping behind the rubber,
because it is a jump turn, it negates 8.01(e). Really? Prove it. Cite the rule. Based on what rule or official interpretation do you justify that because a pitcher executes a jump turn, 8.01(e) does not apply?
For those jump turns in which the pitcher remains in front of the rubber, that is, does not step behind the rubber, 8.01(e) does not apply, the pitcher remains a pitcher, and upon an overthrow, a one base award would be appropriate. For those jump turns in which the pitcher first steps behind the rubber, as with this Cain situation, 8.01(e) applies, the pitcher becomes an infielder, and upon an overthrow, a two base award is appropriate. It’s that simple.
III.
Bob Pariseau
I really feel I understand the one base camp. Why? Because it’s what I thought when I posed my question on McGriff’s (and reprinted above) back in 1999 when Bob answered me. Bob clearly demonstrated that the dropping of hands/disengaging discussion is a red herring to 8.01(e).
[I’m trying to be very careful with my choice of words here in order to distinguish physically breaking contact with the rubber and “disengaging,” as I defined above.] In 1999 I thought, “When a pitcher breaks contact with the rubber by stepping back, he is required to drop his hands, and if he doesn’t drop his hands, then he remains a pitcher, and upon an over throw, a one base award is appropriate.” This is wrong. Let me rewrite this correctly, “When a pitcher breaks contact with the rubber by stepping back, he may then choose to disengage by fulfilling the obligation to drop his hands, or he may choose to complete a jump turn. In either case, since he stepped back, the stipulations of 8.01(e) apply, namely, by stepping back he became an infielder, and as such, the award of bases on the overthrow are the same as with any other infielder.”
If my logic with that is faulty, please show me how. If I’m wrong now, then my green umpire instincts back in 1999, prior to when I asked this same Cain scenario and Bob answered, were correct. I cannot believe Bob P. misled me, so please show me how I am misinterpreting Bob’s excellent answer to my question.
IV.
Umpire Speculation
I find it very ironic on an umpire forum, where many take great pride in pointing out the mistakes of MLB umpires, that those same people, will argue based on the premise that because the umpires in Cain's play awarded one base, it was the correct award.
The following is part of an email conversation between an umpire colleague and me regarding the Cain play:
Colleague: I've been saying that the umpires must have decided that the stepping back was part of a continuous motion and that it was not completed prior to the pickoff move, so 8.01(e) didn't apply.
Me: This "continuous motion" garbage verbiage you're using--what rule are you using to justify this language? You're speculating as to why the umpires ruled as they did. Since I am a proponent of 8.01(e) and think this reasoning (continuous motion verbiage) is wrong (read: garbage), I do not speculate that the umpires would use that as the reason for their decision. I assume they know the rules. It must be something else. Maybe they're copouts and, as you once said, are choosing the decision that they think would cause the least disagreement. But I definitely don't think this little of MLB umpires. I have to believe it's something else. Perhaps, as has been suggested in the thread, Cain was so quick, they didn't notice that he stepped back, and that watching the video in slow motion is doing the umpires a disservice. What else can it be?
You and no one else in that thread have proffered any rule book citation or official interpretation that contradicts or supersedes 8.01(e).
[Sorry for being so verbose, but hey, I’m a disciple of the great Bob P.]
--Paul