In 25 words . . .
 

. . . 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,

Tim,

Because, by custom and practice, it is treated the same as the "jump turn" move which is explicitly allowed.

JM

~Hmm,~
 

JM, nice start.

So how do I document to my local association of umpires "custom and practice?"

How do I convince the "rules mavens" that even though it is not in print that in Chicago and Portland a "jab step" is not a balk?

Regards,

It's not a balk IF F1 steps toward 1st with his free foot while throwing over. F1 is considered on the rubber since he has not disengaged, and neither a jab nor jump step is a legal way to disengage.

It's a balk if he doesn't throw, and only 1 base if he throws it away.

FED permits a jump turn but is silent on a jab step. Until an interpreter tells me otherwise, I will treat them the same.

[Edited to reflect JM's appropriate comment]

dash,

You might want to reword that 1st sentence - it's pretty hard for a pitcher to balk after he's disengaged.

Tim,

In terms of convincing your association, that's a little trickier.

The only explicit documentation I can find specific to the jab step (distinct from the jump turn) is in J/R. I have the "Rule Differences Edition" which, though framed in the context of OBR, notes FED/NCAA differences with footnoted references. On the discussion of the jab step, there is no difference noted for FED (or NCAA). While this is not "official interpretation", it certainly is "authoritative opinion".

[Edited to add...]
Also, IIRC, the Jim Evans balk video which, though again framed in the context of OBR is diligent in pointing out where FED differences exist, explains this as a legal move and makes no mention of anything being different in FED.
[Edit done]

Further, I might suggest that in both the jump turn and the jab step, the pitcher's pivot foot leaves the rubber in a way that is clearly NOT a legal disengage. So, the rules allow the pitcher's pivot foot to leave the rubber in a move treated as "from the rubber". The purpose of the rule is to insure that the pitcher step with his freet foot to the base he is throwing on a pick-off. As long as the move is fluid and continuous, and the free foot gains "direction and distance", it has met the intent of the rule.

I'd probably try something along those lines. Plus, if it's legal in OBR (and NCAA), and there's nothing in FED documentation that says it's not legal, it's probably legal.

John

If it was a day game, would we rule differently??

(Smart ***, I know)

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.

Center of gravity
 

When the pitcher jump turns or jab steps, his center of gravity is directly below him and in front of the pitcher's plate. {23}

It is impossible for him to turn left without moving his pivot foot in the direction of 3B, unless he were to back up first. {25}

OR shorter

There is no requirement to back up or step off the back of the plate during a legal pickoff attempt. {20}

As long as he is in contact with the ground and his lead foot steps in the direction of 1B, his attempt meets the legal requirement of a pickoff move. {30}

Out of the "hole" in 25 words or less?

The fastest possible jab step occurs when the pivot foot steps directly toward 3B and the non-pivot foot steps in the direction of 1B {45-degrees}. {25}

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.

Crap, and now I just caught the "why it is NOT a balk". I have nothing. I would balk that all day.

Thank Daniel Bernoulli

rei,

Have you seen this, from the MLBUM:

or this, from J/R:

It's legal. If you balked it all day, you would be wrong (and protestable) all day.

JM

I see. So what pages in the NCAA and NFHS rule books did you get these out of?

rei,

The NCAA and NFHS rule books (not to mention the OBR) do not say anything about the "Jab Step" move. The J/R quote above is from the "rule Differences Edition", which diligently notes differences between OBR and NCAA. There is no difference noted.

This is the most authoritative opinion I have been able to find on the subject.

Have you got anything other than your (mistaken) interpretation that it is illegal?

JM

For FED, I believe you should review the balk rule before you claim I am "mistaken".

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

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.

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.

On what planet?
 

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. ;)}

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! ;)

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.

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

Hmmm . . .
 

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,

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.

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

...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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

Well . . .
 

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,

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

Tim, not sure where this, any help?

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 ...

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

See Download Rules Book over on the left hand side.

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

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.

Hmmm....

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

Legal deception
 

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}

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

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.

non-sequitor
 

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.

Kidding, right?
 

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.

'jm
 

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,

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)

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.

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

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

I thought you were Bob?

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

UmpJM:
 

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?

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.

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.

Well,
 

"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,

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

Hear no evil, see no evil,

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

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?

I have never heard a complaint about this jump turn with bad timing. It any one complains about a jab step being illegal that is the explanation they will get. A jump turn with bad timing.