NLCS blown base award

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

To - No one in particular:

Sometimes I think that if your personal deity came and told you the answer and it wasn't what you expected you'd say the deity was wrong.

Completely agree.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Manny A

The only authoritative document I've ever seen referencing the jump-turn move is J/R. And in J/R, it is described as the pitcher jumping up with both feet simultaneously in the air, and turning the body towards the base so that when the pitcher lands, his free foot gains direction and distance to the base.

That's clearly not what happened here, at least per J/R's description of the move.

If there's another authoritative reference that describes other ways a pitcher may execute a jump-turn, I'd be interested to hear them, just for my education.

That is what I referred to as the "classic jump turn" way back when. I'm really in the camp that wasn't a jump turn in the true sense of the meaning.

[Lapopez]

I first entered the world of umpire forums in the late 90s on McGriff’s board. My all time favorite poster is Bob Pariseau. I was constantly copying and pasting his responses. On September 10, 1999, I posted the following question:

“With a runner on first and a right handed pitcher, I often see the following pickoff move at the 11-15 year old level. The pitcher will, in one continuous motion, step back off the rubber with his right foot, turn and step towards first, followed by the throw to first. Although this is not a very fast move, I am not questioning the move itself since it is a legal move. Following this move I have seen pitchers throw the ball out of play. At another time I saw a pitcher bluff the throw because, when he turned, he saw that the first baseman was not covering the base. One viewpoint is that when the pitcher stepped off the rubber he became an infielder. Therefore on the overthrown ball the runner is awarded third (a two base award). The bluffed throw to first would not be a balk since the pitcher was not touching the rubber. These would be two consistent rulings. I don’t agree with them though. When a pitcher disengages the rubber he must drop his hands to his sides. If he does this, I agree he becomes an infielder and is subject to 8.01e/7.05g. But in the aforementioned play, the move originated with the pitcher in contact with the rubber and followed continuously with the throw (or feint) to first. In my opinion he is still considered to be a “pitcher” for the purposes of the balk rule and 7.05h. I would charge a balk on the feinted throw and award only second on the overthrown ball. Does my argument have any merit?”

I am grateful for the following response by Bob, which has made this situation “textbook” for me ever since. Warning: Bob was quite the verbose fellow.

“First I should confess that when I was learning the balk rules I came to the same conclusion! The text of OBR is not really clear on this one.

I rapidly learned I was wrong. The INTENT of the rule (dropping hands to side) is to protect the BATTER. It is one way of keeping the pitcher from “quick pitching” the batter—since the pitcher now has to go through all the normal preliminaries as part of re-engaging the rubber. He can’t just step off, then step on, then pitch all at once. The way to enforce it is to require the pitcher to drop his hands before he RE-engages the rubber after stepping off. So the step-back pickoff is legal, and yes it is a throw by an infielder (two bases on a throw out of play), and yes as a throw by an infielder the pitcher MAY legally feint to 1B.

Technically the pitcher’s pivot foot must land entirely off of, and in back of, the rubber before the pitcher separates his hands to start the snap-throwing motion, but many umpires are not that picky and will allow a simultaneous step-back and separation of hands.

Note also that failure to drop the hands before stepping back onto the rubber is not in and of itself a Balk unless the pitcher actually does quick pitch the batter. It’s a “DON’T DO THAT!” situation. Warn the pitcher and eject if he persists.

Finally, note that if the pitcher steps to the SIDE with his pivot foot (i.e. a step towards 3B with the right foot by a righty on a pickoff to 1B), then he has NOT legally disengaged the rubber. This is the start of a jump-turn or step-turn pickoff. Both are legal, but both are considered to be throws “from the rubber” since the pitcher never legally disengaged by stepping BACK (even though his pivot foot might actually have come off the rubber as part of the side step towards 3B). As such, the pitcher MUST step-and-throw (not feint) to 1B, and a throw out of play is only a one base award.
--Bob”

Thanks Bob, wherever you are!

Good catch, rpumpire!

[jicecone]

The one thing I keep seeing is this talk about dropping your hands to the side before disengaging the plate. Unless I am wrong here, that is necessary from the wind-up position, not the set position as shown .

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

I first entered the world of umpire forums in the late 90s on McGriff’s board. My all time favorite poster is Bob Pariseau. I was constantly copying and pasting his responses. On September 10, 1999, I posted the following question:

“With a runner on first and a right handed pitcher,

SNIP!

--Bob”

Thanks Bob, wherever you are!

Good catch, rpumpire!

Good ole' Bob. Why use one word when a thousand will do just as nicely? LOL.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by jicecone

The one thing I keep seeing is this talk about dropping your hands to the side before disengaging the plate. Unless I am wrong here, that is necessary from the wind-up position, not the set position as shown .

"Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side;"

[jicecone]

I am aware of that Bob however, this idea of dropping the hands to the sides is only applicable to the windup.So i do not see were it is applicable here.

[bob jenkins]

The statement about dropping the hands is a comment to 8.01 -- before parts (a) or (b) so it applies to both.

And, I assume it's a typo when you said BEFORE disengaging -- dropping the hands before disengaging is a balk.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

100% a jump turn.

To be a disengagement, he has to place the foot on the ground before separating the hands or turning the hip / starting the step toward first.

Ask yourself: If Cain had made the same move but held on to the ball, would you have it as legal or a balk?

Bob, is this still your opinion?

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

Bob, is this still your opinion?

Ignoring any quibble over whether this was a jump turn or a jab step, etc -- yes. I have it as a move to first and a (correct) one base award.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Ignoring any quibble over whether this was a jump turn or a jab step, etc -- yes. I have it as a move to first and a (correct) one base award.

In light of Bob P.'s explanation?

[maven]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

In light of Bob P.'s explanation?

That explanation is consistent with ruling the move a jump step.

[jicecone]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

The statement about dropping the hands is a comment to 8.01 -- before parts (a) or (b) so it applies to both.

And, I assume it's a typo when you said BEFORE disengaging -- dropping the hands before disengaging is a balk.

No it wasn't a typo, neither was "unless I am wrong here", which turns out to be the case.

Thanks

[Lapopez]

The best I can tell, here’s the tally:

One Base Camp (11): Maven, UES, Welpe, Steven Tyler, Bob Jenkins, MD Longhorn, RPatrino, Rich, Mrumpiresir, DG, Jicecone. (Notice any big dogs?)

Two Base Camp (7): Lapopez (me), RPumpire, ZM1283, Umpjim, Manny A, JohnnyG08, Dash_Ripock.

Unknown (1): Rich Ives

I only need to sway three people, and there are seven days left until the election!

I hope I can resurrect this thread that you’ll see I am very passionate about. Since I am in the two base camp, I obviously don’t agree with the arguments of the one base camp. I am more dissatisfied with the arguments put forth by the two base camp since, if for no other reason, not ONE person cited OBR 8.01(e)!

Play: The Cain pickoff/overthrow.

Ruling: Two Base Award

Rule Basis: OBR 8.01(e), and NOTHING ELSE.

Rule 8.01(e): If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.

I. Disengagement
Those in the one base camp go to great lengths to assert that Cain did not legally disengage. Guess what, I completely agree. Let me assert this very definitively: CAIN DID NOT DISENGAGE! Why does the one base camp conclude from that that Cain remained a pitcher, and as such, when he threw the ball out of play, a one base award is appropriate? Please cite a rule and show me where the following logic is faulty.

Based on Maven’s statements, I think he would agree with how I interpret the use of the word “disengage” as used in OBR 8.01 and 8.01(a). (That word is not used anywhere else in OBR!) Maven likes to clarify by adding the word “legally.” I have no problem with that and use “disengage” and “legally disengage” interchangeably. “Disengage" refers to the act of a pitcher stepping back behind the rubber with his pivot foot first AND dropping his hands. Cain didn’t drop his hands, so Cain didn’t legally disengage. However, it’s IRRELEVANT! Whether Cain disengaged is irrelevant to 8.01(e). To say that, in order to apply 8.01(e), a pitcher must legally disengage, is too restrictive. Notice 8.01(e) doesn’t even use the word “disengage.” A pitcher must merely step back for 8.01(e) to apply. Stepping back is only one component of legally disengaging. It is not necessary for the pitcher to drop his hands to invoke 8.01(e), only that he steps back. The question of dropping his hands is only relevant to determine if he legally disengaged. In other words, a pitcher may legally disengage and be subject to 8.01(e) but it’s not necessary that he legally disengage.

To determine if 8.01(e) applies to Cain requires no consideration as to whether Cain legally disengaged. The only thing we have to consider is whether Cain stepped back. This is not to say that 8.01(e) doesn’t apply to a pitcher who does legally disengage. On the contrary, since such a pitcher steps back, 8.01(e) also applies to him. It is faulty reasoning to infer that because Cain did not disengage, he maintained his status as a pitcher. Cain did not disengage and he STILL lost his status since he stepped back, as 8.01(e) stipulates.

II. Jump-Turn
Those in the one base camp go to great lengths to assert that Cain executed a jump turn. Guess what, I completely agree. Correct me if I am wrong but this is as I understand the one base camp: “A jump turn is a move ‘from the rubber,’ and as such, the pitcher remains a pitcher, even if the pitcher executes a jump turn in which he first moves his pivot foot behind the rubber.” Is that right? So, even a jump turn that involves first stepping behind the rubber, because it is a jump turn, it negates 8.01(e). Really? Prove it. Cite the rule. Based on what rule or official interpretation do you justify that because a pitcher executes a jump turn, 8.01(e) does not apply?

For those jump turns in which the pitcher remains in front of the rubber, that is, does not step behind the rubber, 8.01(e) does not apply, the pitcher remains a pitcher, and upon an overthrow, a one base award would be appropriate. For those jump turns in which the pitcher first steps behind the rubber, as with this Cain situation, 8.01(e) applies, the pitcher becomes an infielder, and upon an overthrow, a two base award is appropriate. It’s that simple.

III. Bob Pariseau
I really feel I understand the one base camp. Why? Because it’s what I thought when I posed my question on McGriff’s (and reprinted above) back in 1999 when Bob answered me. Bob clearly demonstrated that the dropping of hands/disengaging discussion is a red herring to 8.01(e).

[I’m trying to be very careful with my choice of words here in order to distinguish physically breaking contact with the rubber and “disengaging,” as I defined above.] In 1999 I thought, “When a pitcher breaks contact with the rubber by stepping back, he is required to drop his hands, and if he doesn’t drop his hands, then he remains a pitcher, and upon an over throw, a one base award is appropriate.” This is wrong. Let me rewrite this correctly, “When a pitcher breaks contact with the rubber by stepping back, he may then choose to disengage by fulfilling the obligation to drop his hands, or he may choose to complete a jump turn. In either case, since he stepped back, the stipulations of 8.01(e) apply, namely, by stepping back he became an infielder, and as such, the award of bases on the overthrow are the same as with any other infielder.”

If my logic with that is faulty, please show me how. If I’m wrong now, then my green umpire instincts back in 1999, prior to when I asked this same Cain scenario and Bob answered, were correct. I cannot believe Bob P. misled me, so please show me how I am misinterpreting Bob’s excellent answer to my question.

IV. Umpire Speculation
I find it very ironic on an umpire forum, where many take great pride in pointing out the mistakes of MLB umpires, that those same people, will argue based on the premise that because the umpires in Cain's play awarded one base, it was the correct award.

The following is part of an email conversation between an umpire colleague and me regarding the Cain play:

Colleague: I've been saying that the umpires must have decided that the stepping back was part of a continuous motion and that it was not completed prior to the pickoff move, so 8.01(e) didn't apply.

Me: This "continuous motion" garbage verbiage you're using--what rule are you using to justify this language? You're speculating as to why the umpires ruled as they did. Since I am a proponent of 8.01(e) and think this reasoning (continuous motion verbiage) is wrong (read: garbage), I do not speculate that the umpires would use that as the reason for their decision. I assume they know the rules. It must be something else. Maybe they're copouts and, as you once said, are choosing the decision that they think would cause the least disagreement. But I definitely don't think this little of MLB umpires. I have to believe it's something else. Perhaps, as has been suggested in the thread, Cain was so quick, they didn't notice that he stepped back, and that watching the video in slow motion is doing the umpires a disservice. What else can it be? You and no one else in that thread have proffered any rule book citation or official interpretation that contradicts or supersedes 8.01(e).

[Sorry for being so verbose, but hey, I’m a disciple of the great Bob P.]

--Paul

[Rich]

No offense to Bob Pariseau, but I found him to be more verbose than great.

Do you have a tl;dr version of the novel above?

Sometimes you just have to umpire.