In 25 words . . .

[UmpJM]

rei,

Been there, done that. Of course, reviewing the OBR balk rules could also lead one to the erroneous conclusion that a "jab step" move is illegal.

BTW, are you in Tee's association?

JM

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by rei

Errrrrrr....As I recall, you may only disengage from the rubber by stepping BACKWARDS from it. Otherwise, the rule is pretty clear that his non-pivot foot must step directly towards the bag as the first move.

So, he can step BACK, but not sideways with the pivot foot.

Don't have a rule book handy with me, but I do believe it to be quite specific on how a pitcher is supposed to disengage the rubber. Our rules guy is very, very good and has never demonstrated what Tim C. has described as the "Maddox Move". If your talking balks in MLB, they are lenient with some pitchers and their moves. I will on occasion see a variation to the move, but it is more of a spin on the pivot foot, step and throw to the base. I never hear any complaints and consider it a move from the rubber.

Heck if you can balk by taking signs off the rubber in FED, a move such as this would surely constitute a balk.

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

rei,

Been there, done that. Of course, reviewing the OBR balk rules could also lead one to the erroneous conclusion that a "jab step" move is illegal.

BTW, are you in Tee's association?

JM

What was describe, regardless of what label you give it, is a balk under NFHS rules. Until NFHS say otherwise, I will balk a move like that.

Yes, I know Tim well enough.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

Don't have a rule book handy with me, but I do believe it to be quite specific on how a pitcher is supposed to disengage the rubber. Our rules guy is very, very good and has never demonstrated what Tim C. has described as the "Maddox Move". If your talking balks in MLB, they are lenient with some pitchers and their moves. I will on occasion see a variation to the move, but it is more of a spin on the pivot foot, step and throw to the base. I never hear any complaints and consider it a move from the rubber.

Heck if you can balk by taking signs off the rubber in FED, a move such as this would surely constitute a balk.

TC did not ask about properly disengaging the rubber. Yes the rulebook is clear about that. He did not ask about making a delivery to the batter. The rulebook is not very clear about that. He did ask about making a legal pickoff move to 1B.

{Of course I see the satire in your statement. I hope others read the satire in my post. }

Originally Posted by SAump

You're not gonna tell your supervisor about your plans to continue to balk a legal move {if it turns out to be legal}. If you're not sure that the quotes he provided were false, you shouldn't cast stones. Having the stones to balk a move like that should also have the stones to allow it if you hear it from supervisors you trust. How many times will you hear the rulebook has 200 and something errors before you learn not to lose your stones too soon? I would never balked a jump turn or a jab step to 1B. Not saying you are wrong. I am saying I disagree with your interpretation of the very FED rules you quoted. Can't say I was always right either. Would gladly overturn my "opinion" on the matter if told to do so by my supervisor, with or without proof.

Don't believe me? Check out the 2005 NCAA balk bulletin and the disaster that soon followed. The umps called more technical balks that year and by the end of the season, the spirit of the balk rule was back in effect. Same thing happened to the MLB Questec strike zone. The MLB umps called more rulebook high strikes that year and by the end of the season, the spirit of the belt-high strike rule was back in effect. Coaches get pissed and call above your head. Supervisors cut their losses when umps are proven wrong. Do you think the MLB ump who called the high strike said he would continue calling that way?

Simply, I believe that the move is deceptive to the base runner. While I do not have the Fed book handy either right now, I do not think it will be very hard to show that it IS in fact a balk in NFHS rules.

I don't not give a lick how the "pro's" interpret the rule. I umpire no games that play under OBR rules.

Also, I argue MANY interpretations with my "supervisor". I win more times than not!

Originally Posted by SAump

You're not gonna tell your supervisor about your plans to continue to balk a legal move {if it turns out to be legal}. If you're not sure that the quotes he provided were false, you shouldn't cast stones. Having the stones to balk a move like that should also have the stones to allow it if you hear it from supervisors you trust. How many times will you hear the rulebook has 200 and something errors before you learn not to lose your stones too soon? I would never balked a jump turn or a jab step to 1B. Not saying you are wrong. I am saying I disagree with your interpretation of the very FED rules you quoted. Can't say I was always right either. Would gladly overturn my "opinion" on the matter if told to do so by my supervisor, with or without proof.

Don't believe me? Check out the 2005 NCAA balk bulletin and the disaster that soon followed. The umps called more technical balks that year and by the end of the season, the spirit of the balk rule was back in effect. Same thing happened to the MLB Questec strike zone. The MLB umps called more rulebook high strikes that year and by the end of the season, the spirit of the belt-high strike rule was back in effect. Coaches get pissed and call above your head. Supervisors cut their losses when umps are proven wrong. Do you think the MLB ump who called the high strike said he would continue calling that way?

So, I now have the Fed. book here.

Rule 6, ART3: "During these preliminary motions and during the set position until a delivery motion occurs, the pitcher may turn on his pivot footor lift it in a jump turn to step with the non-pivot foot toward a base while throwing or feinting as outlinned in 6-2-4 and 2-28-5, or he may lift his pivot foot in a step backward off the pitcher's plate.

I have been told time and time again that the Fed rules are mostly literal concerning what a pitcher may do. Thus, the rule book clearly explains what the pitcher may do with his pivot foot, and stepping towards 3rd with it IS NOT one of them.

With all that in mind. I will balk a pitcher who does this move until I see something in the NFHS rule book that explains that the pitcher, while on the rubber in the set position, can step towards 3rd base with the pivot foot.

Sue me if you can add that move to the simple rule above! Again, I could care less what they are doing in the pro game.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by rei

So, I now have the Fed. book here.

I will balk a pitcher who does this move until I see something in the NFHS rule book that explains that the pitcher, while on the rubber in the set position, can step towards 3rd base with the pivot foot.

In a normal jump step move to 1st (RHP) the pivot foot moves toward 3rd. So where's the balk on the jab step?

[Tim C]

This is a great conversation.

Yes, I know Rei quite well. We work together once or twice a year. Rei also was the plate umpire for the State Championship game of Oregon's largest school classification this past spring.

Rei is also a member of the college association and this is where this discussion started. I was with three members of the college group Wednesday night and our conversation came around to this specific issue.

One of the leading college umpires in this small group said that he would balk the "jab step" EVERY TIME!

Now Rei chimes in with the same feeling.

This is why I asked the question and am totally confused.

(Note: I have no idea what SAUmp is even saying in his "rising fastball" post -- facts are still facts, no matter what those words mean.)

Regards,

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Tim C

. . . or less explain to me the following:

NFHS Rules
Right Handed Pitcher
R1
Outs don't matter
A night game

Pitcher uses the Greg Maddox "Jab Step" (i.e. right foot -- pivot foot -- takes a quick step towards third base and F1 turns quickly and throws to first).

Under NFHS Rules explain to me why this is not a BALK.

Regards,

I am not sure if the jab step constitutes the pivot foot disengaging the plate or not however, NFHS 6-1-3 clearly states how a pitcher is allowed to disengage the plate. Any other way is a "illegal act" , balk.

A feint to any base requires a step with the non-pivot foot NFHS 6-2-4-b.

In a night game the only way I can see it not being a balk is if the lights were not good enough for the officials to see what the pitcher did with his pivot foot.

[JJ]

Since we have it in black and white that it is NOT considered a balk in Pro, and we have it in black and white...

JJ

[JJ]

...what IS LEGAL in FED, it follows that this is NOT a balk in Pro and IS a balk in FED.

JJ

The original post did say 25 words or less...

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by JJ

...what IS LEGAL in FED, it follows that this is NOT a balk in Pro and IS a balk in FED.

JJ

The original post did say 25 words or less...

Yea but, TC set a new precedence with his last post , which then superseded his original ruling and therefore it is considered the latest interpretation.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by rei

This to me appears to be a move with the pivot foot first. Indeed, if he is doing a jump turn, that is a different story, because both feet are supposedly leaving the ground at the same time. In what was described, the pivot foot is stepping towards third base. This is deceptive. His NON-PIVOT foot must step directly towards a base, not his pivot foot.

I don't see where the confusion is. It is a freaking balk the way it is described.

IMO, this is the only quasi-valid argument that the jab step is a balk in FED, and I don't buy it. The disengaging stuff is irrelevant, because F1 is not disengaged in either move.

In both the jump and jab step moves, the free foot moves toward 1st, and the pivot foot moves toward 3rd. The only arguable difference is, in the jump step, both feet are moved simultaneously, while in the jab step, the pivot foot leads by a fraction of a second. I can't see how the jab step is deceptive if the jump step is not. They are the same, save for (maybe) a fraction of a second difference in timing. FED does not say that the jump step entails simultaneous movement of the feet, nor does it say that the free foot must lead, only that F1 step towards 1st with the non-pivot foot while throwing there. What if F1 lifted both feet in a jump turn, but landed on his pivot foot a fraction of a second before stepping towards 1st with his free foot. Is that a balk? I don't think so.

The choices:

A. The rules don't specifically allow it, so it's a balk.
B. The rules don't specifically prohibit it, so it's not a balk.

I'll choose B.

[PeteBooth]

The actual choice is this:

How does one's association call it.

Example;

In FED, there is the "gorilla" balk and years ago F1 could not check a runner.

There were some associations who would not call this "technicality" a balk hence no call was made. Same with the Gorilla Balk.

Therefore the REAL answer is What is the concenses in the association you work for.

Pete Booth