In 25 words . . .

[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.

[SAump]

Originally Posted by rei

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.

Let me quote, "the pitcher may turn on his pivot foot or lift it in a jump turn to step with the non-pivot foot toward a base while throwing or feinting"

The Maddux jab step is a very exaggerated jump turn. You telling me that you honestly believe that a jump turn is simultaneously executed with both feet from beginnning to end. OOO, where is that pivot foot suppose to land, closer to 1B? What happens if he lands on his free foot before his pivot foot, you gonna balk that too? Are you gonna let the guy release the pickoff throw before his feet return to the ground too? That's a balk. Are you gonna let him double "360" windup and slingshot his throw to 1B? That's a balk.

The argument about how clear the rulebook is about the move of the pivot foot towards 3B is weak. In my best judgment of Rule 6, ART 3, the jab step is a jump turn step most of the time.

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by SAump

I think Mr Jenkins, Mr. Ives, Garth, TC, and others understand the respect I have for them.

To be frank, I understand very little about any of your posts.

[UmpJM]

Tim,

The reason I found Mr. Paronto's "3rd to 1st move" analogy so off point as a rationale for supporting the legality of the jab step move under FED rules is twofold.

First, it doesn't address in any way the concern expressed by those who believe the move should be balked. Namely, that the pivot foot comes off the rubber before the free foot starts a step to the base.

A pitcher's pivot foot always comes off the rubber when he delivers a pitch, throws a pick-off, or makes a (legal) feint to a base. Once he completes the legal pitch/throw/feint he is no longer "in contact" and is no longer constrained by the rules that constrain an "in contact" pitcher.

So, I don't think that those who (erroneously) believe that the jab step should be balked think that a pitcher's pivot foot can't leave the rubber to the "front side" on a pick-off - they just think it can't be the first part of the move.

Second, it's an especially unconvincing argument in the context of FED rules because the FED rule makers, in yet another display of the "rugged individualism" for which they are known, explicitly allow the pitcher to remain in contact with the rubber on the third to first move. (Ref.: FED 6.2.4c).

Personally, I think the jab step move is legal because it does not violate the letter of the rules and because it provides the defense with no unintended advantage. Since the only thing a RHP can (legally) do after making a jab step towards 3B is throw a pick-off to 1B, and only after subsequently making a legal step with his free foot, the runner's "rights" in having some forewarning (of an impending pick-off throw) intended by the rules are properly served.

Nonetheless, good discussion.

JM

[briancurtin]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

To be frank, I understand very little about any of your posts.

I thought you were Bob?

[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

[Tim C]

Sorry, we will have to just agree to disagree on a foot coming off the pitcher's plate.

The foot coming off during a pitch is apples: a foot coming off during a pickoff attempt is oranges.

The "point" that Paranto makes is:

F1 is NOT disengaging therefore there is no balk.

Regards,

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by Tim C

Sorry, we will have to just agree to disagree on a foot coming off the pitcher's plate.

The foot coming off during a pitch is apples: a foot coming off during a pickoff attempt is oranges.

The "point" that Paranto makes is:

F1 is NOT disengaging therefore there is no balk.

Regards,

I don't disagree with the logic however, do we let this same move be acceptable with R3 and R1? Or is that at the discretgion of the official if it can be taken as a feint to third?

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.