In 25 words . . .

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by 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

I'm not familiar with the "gorilla balk" or "check a runner" terminology. Could you enlighten me?

My association goes by what our state interpreter says, not by consensus. Until he tells us the jab step is a balk, I ain't calling it. Our meeting with the interpreter is Feb. 2. I will bring up the subject and report back here.

[dash_riprock]

If, by "gorilla balk" you meant the pitching hand dangling in front rather than at his side or behind his back, we just prevented that rather than balk it (per our interpreter).

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by rei

Simply, I believe that the move is deceptive to the base runner.

While not commenting on the specific play at hand, I think you ought to discard this idea of "deceptive to the base runner," because pitchers are allowed to deceive baserunners. They do it all the time. They just can't illegally deceive them.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by UMP25

While not commenting on the specific play at hand, I think you ought to discard this idea of "deceptive to the base runner," because pitchers are allowed to deceive baserunners. They do it all the time. They just can't illegally deceive them.

Exactly. Deception alone is not sufficient to warrant a balk on the jab step.

HOWEVER: The OBR balk rule (iirc) provides some basic principles for calling balks. It also explicitly acknowledges that there will be borderline cases.

In borderline cases, where there is some doubt as to whether the pitcher has balked, the instruction is to evaluate whether the pitcher intended to deceive the runner. If so, balk; if not, let it go.

STILL: A properly performed jab step looks very similar to a jump step, which all seem to agree is legal. I accept the following reasoning:

1. Pro instruction is that the jab step is NOT a balk.
2. Though one reading of FED rules might have the jab step a balk, FED does not explicitly (for instance, in a casebook play) rule the jab step a balk.
3. In the absence of a FED ruling/interp specifically addressing this issue, I will go with pro instruction.

As I gaze into my crystal ball: FED will address this issue explicitly and issue an interp in the coming year that falls in line with MLB and NCAA regarding the jab step.

[bossman72]

It's really not deceiving to the baserunner. All base runners are taught to watch the pivot foot of a RHP at first base. When the pivot foot moves, they go back.

I mean, if they allow a jump turn (where the pivot foot also moves toward third base), why would the jab step not be legal as well?

This move has been legal for a very long time. Don't try to be a crusader against it since it's not EXACTLY by the book. I guarantee if you don't balk this you will not hear a peep from either dugout all game. If you do balk it... well... good luck

[socalblue1]

In all rule interpretations I am aware off, the jab step is considered the same as a jump spin.

So long as the free foot gains distance and direction no balk. As with the jump spin, need to watch out for F1 simply pivoting on his free foot while bringing the pivot foot forward and/or toward 3B.

[Tim C]

One more rules set thinks it is OK:

I received an e-mail from Jim Paranto of the NCAA today.

Jim's point is:

"Tim, think about a right handed pitcher during the "fake to third and throw to first" pickoff move. The pivot foot disengages 'forward.'

"The move you described is based along the same logic as this play. Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

"I hope this answers your question."

Regards,

[jicecone]

Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

Tim, not sure where this, any help?

[UmpJM]

jicecone,

That (i.e. 9-3b, clauses 1, 2, & 3) is an NCAA rule reference.

Unique among all rule codes I have read (or at least those that I recall), the NCAA code includes the explicit requirement that a pitcher ...

(2) Must break contact with the rubber before throwing to first, and ...

Though I am not certain, I believe that this is the "point" of the response from Mr. Paronto that Tee is relating to us.

JM

[DG]

Originally Posted by jicecone

Have everyone reread 9-3b (1) (2) (3).

Tim, not sure where this, any help?

See Download Rules Book over on the left hand side.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p...baseball/index

[Steven Tyler]

Quote:
(2) Must break contact with the rubber before throwing to first, and ...

Yep, if there is a runner on third and first. I don't think Jim Paronto is on the same page.

[UmpJM]

Hmmm....

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

...I don't think Jim Paronto is on the same page.

Having thought about it some, I find myself reluctantly compelled to agree with Steven Tyler's comment.

Hey, when he's right, he's right.

While I would agree with Mr. Paronto that the jab step is properly NOT balked in NCAA (I'm sure that will be a big relief to him), the proposed rationale is appallingly "non sequitur."

JM

[SAump]

Old rules limited the pitcher in the set position to stand facing the batter with the entire pivot foot on, or in front of, and in contact with, and not off the end of the pitcher's plate, and the other foot in front the pitcher's plate. Even as stiff as the old rules were, the jab step and jump turn were utilized by pitchers all over the country. There were never any balks called. IOW, I never heard NCAA umpire associations discuss the illegality of this practice prior this post. But now I understand Papa C's position regarding umpires posting on the internet and his decision not to participate.

From what I understand, this same rule has been recently modified to allow the pitcher to stand off the end of the plate while in contact with part of the pivot foot and to lift the restriction placed on the other free foot. I think this was part of the MLB decision to tighten the outer strike zone and a compromise to allow the pitcher an angle toward the plate. So my question is, when the RHP initiates his jab step to 3B, doesn't it actually land in a position that could also be utilized by the other free foot of a lefty standing on the 3B edge of the pitcher's plate?
---------------
I wouldn't call a balk on RHP for placing his pivot foot in the same location a lefty would utilize in the set position. {24}

or

You called the balk. Go explain it to the coach now and see if he accepts your rationale or leaves his opinion on the field. {25}

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by SAump

Call the balk. Accept the protest. It's your ASZ on the line. Go ahead and see what the protest committee tells you and bet your last paycheck on it too.

Last time I looked at a map, San Antonio is not annexed from the state of Texas. Texas does not allow protests in FED.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.

I think this is along the best that we'll do. By strict reading, it probably *is* a balk in all codes. By common interpretation (sometimes specific, as in MLBUM), it's not.

It's not much different from the "step to teh side" in the wind-up position. THe rule said "step backwards and forwards" for years (and in some codes still might say that), but everyone allowed the step to the side. The (FED) rule finally caught up a couple of years ago.

Oh -- the 25-words or less answer: Don't be a f***ing plumber.