In 25 words . . .

[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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

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

Like saying Texas doesn't allow bad calls. Bad calls can result in negative outcomes for either coach or umpire. Start a new thread and tell us how UIL and TASO handle it {bad calls, ejections, protests}. They will always be good and bad calls, good and bad disputes about those calls, good and bad ejections, and good or bad repercussions to follow.

[Tim C]

I think what Paronto is really focusing in on is that a pitcher that does a jab step has never disengaged and that cannot be an argument for a balk.

I also beleive that Paronto clearly has stated that the jab step is perfectly legal.

Now to take this to NFHS rules.

We know on the fake to third and throw to first that it is clearly written that F1 must "break contact with the pitcher's plate" before throwing to first. This ALSO MEANS that he has step forward of the pitcher's plate just like in a jab step.

It is now clear too me that my college cohorts were a little cross threaded and I will share all this with them.

It appears perfectly clear to me now that the jab step is legal under all codes.

What we find often in NFHS rules is that change at the practical level happens far ahead of the written word.

Thank you to everyone for your input.

Regards,

[D-Man]

Could it be possibe that as long as the "jab step" takes place within (OK, does that mean completely within?...) the 18 inces of the pitcher's plate, the pitcher is still considered engaged (to the rubber) and therefore he has executed a legal move?

Just a thought.

D

(sorry, 1 ince = 0.75 inches)

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by D-Man

Could it be possibe that as long as the "jab step" takes place within (OK, does that mean completely within?...) the 18 inces of the pitcher's plate, the pitcher is still considered engaged (to the rubber) and therefore he has executed a legal move?

Just a thought.

D

No. There is no requirement for the pivot foot to remain within the width of the rubber during a jump turn, only that F1 step towards 1st while throwing there.

F1 is engaged during both the jump turn and jab step. The question is whether the pivot foot can move first (jab step), rather than simultaneous with the free foot (jump turn).

BTW, the rubber is 24" wide.

[D-Man]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

No. There is no requirement for the pivot foot to remain within the width of the rubber during a jump turn, only that F1 step towards 1st while throwing there.

F1 is engaged during both the jump turn and jab step. The question is whether the pivot foot can move first (jab step), rather than simultaneous with the free foot (jump turn).

BTW, the rubber is 24" wide.

I understand it's not part of the rule. Maybe, someday, the rule writers will need a rationale as to why they can allow a move like this. I am merely offering them a plausible explanation for possible future inclusion.

I don't see any unfair deception here. If the pivot foot moves, R1 gets back. F1 isn't allowed to throw before the (free foot) step in either the jump turn or jab step.

Jicecone, where did you move to???

D

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by D-Man

I understand it's not part of the rule. Maybe, someday, the rule writers will need a rationale as to why they can allow a move like this. I am merely offering them a plausible explanation for possible future inclusion.

I don't see any unfair deception here. If the pivot foot moves, R1 gets back. F1 isn't allowed to throw before the (free foot) step in either the jump turn or jab step.

Jicecone, where did you move to???

D

Funny you ask, I spent almost 2 yrs in New Orleans on the Hurrican Katrina cleanup and then went upstate NY for a Wind Energy project that was suppose to last 3 yr but lasted 6 mos. I was in NO this past week for a large USACOE project and will know by wed where I am going to end up. Maybe back south. Either way I am very anxious to get back officiating. Thanks

Originally Posted by Tim C

I think what Paronto is really focusing in on is that a pitcher that does a jab step has never disengaged and that cannot be an argument for a balk.

I also beleive that Paronto clearly has stated that the jab step is perfectly legal.

Now to take this to NFHS rules.

We know on the fake to third and throw to first that it is clearly written that F1 must "break contact with the pitcher's plate" before throwing to first. This ALSO MEANS that he has step forward of the pitcher's plate just like in a jab step.

It is now clear too me that my college cohorts were a little cross threaded and I will share all this with them.

It appears perfectly clear to me now that the jab step is legal under all codes.

What we find often in NFHS rules is that change at the practical level happens far ahead of the written word.

Thank you to everyone for your input.

Regards,

I will still balk the move you described.

Originally Posted by rei

I will still balk the move you described.

But, this is mostly a mute point really. In the approximately 2200 baseball games I have umpired, I have never seen this move done.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by rei

But, this is mostly a mute point really. In the approximately 2200 baseball games I have umpired, I have never seen this move done.

What!?

It seems likely, then, that the move that you are envisioning in your mind's eye is not the move commonly referred to as the "jab step".

I won't go so far as to say it's the most common move by a RH pitcher, but it's certainly in the top 3. So, it's extremely unlikley that you wouldn't have seen it (and seen it many times) in your 2200 games.

[Tim C]

"But, this is mostly a mute point really. In the approximately 2200 baseball games I have umpired, I have never seen this move done."

I can't speak for your games but it is not a MOOT point in my games. It actually happens all the time. I am only at about 4,000 games and have seen it a whole lot lately.

Regards,

[SanDiegoSteve]

Where do people get "mute" point from anyway? Never did understand that one.

[justanotherblue]

Hear no evil, see no evil,

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by rei

But, this is mostly a mute point really. In the approximately 2200 baseball games I have umpired, I have never seen this move done.

I know you've seen this. It's one of the most common moves. Think of a jump turn with bad timing.

[RPatrino]

I don't know about mute, but I was once in a heated 'discussion' with the coach from the California School for the Deaf. My quandry, do I EJ the coach or his interpreter?