The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Baseball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 12, 2008, 09:44am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 126
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)

Last edited by D-Man; Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:45am.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jan 12, 2008, 10:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: NY
Posts: 1,428
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 13, 2008, 08:45am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 126
Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jan 13, 2008, 10:06am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 2,716
Quote:
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

Last edited by jicecone; Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:09am.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Men of few words? just another ref Basketball 3 Fri Nov 30, 2007 02:07pm
NFL Network: In Their Own Words OverAndBack Football 4 Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:40am
short words RUBIERA Basketball 10 Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:12am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:55am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1