NLCS blown base award

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

Bob P is from San Francisco. The email I have is not active.

I've found a Robert Pariseau listed as a former (it appears) UIC of Little League District 15 in Massachusetts. What are the odds?

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

I cannot find any such language, Rich.

You quote it then deny it. OMG! 2012 MLBUM Chapter/Section/Rule 53 Page 67 (The bold is theirs, the underscored part you need to read slowly - very slowly - and carefully)

(i) It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pick-off move to first base by first moving his pivot foot in the direction of third base provided that he makes a legal step toward first base with the non-pivot foot before throwing there and provided that the move is continuous and without interruption. A pitcher who makes such a pick-off move is considered to be in contact with the rubber when he makes his throw to first base.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Carl Childress

Mr. Lopez wrote me to ask my opinion.

.

Carl, did you read his dissertation? It's not just about whether or not it was a jump turn.

in post #59 lapopez said

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?

and

Whether Cain disengaged is irrelevant to 8.01(e).

A pitcher must merely step back for 8.01(e) to apply.

Do you agree with his conclusions?

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

You quote it then deny it. OMG! 2012 MLBUM Chapter/Section/Rule 53 Page 67 (The bold is theirs, the underscored part you need to read slowly - very slowly - and carefully)

(i) It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pick-off move to first base by first moving his pivot foot in the direction of third base provided that he makes a legal step toward first base with the non-pivot foot before throwing there and provided that the move is continuous and without interruption. A pitcher who makes such a pick-off move is considered to be in contact with the rubber when he makes his throw to first base.

"Such a pick-off move" = "pick-off move to first base by first moving his pivot foot in the direction of third base"

That's not what Cain did. Cain stepped back.

(As far as what you addressed to Carl, I'll let Carl respond to the selective sentences you chose from my dissertation that you did not understand as to how they fit into the rest of the argument.)

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

"Such a pick-off move" = "pick-off move to first base by first moving his pivot foot in the direction of third base"

That's not what Cain did.

(As far as what you addressed to Carl, I'll let Carl respond to the selective sentences you chose from my dissertation that you did not understand how they fit into the rest of the argument.)

For deity's sake - the meaning is that it's a move from the rubber and that a jump turn is also a move from the rubber. If they're from the rubber then it couldn't be considered a disengagement. 8.01(e) defines what you consider the pitcher IF he legally disengages as described in 8.01 a and b - not as a separate thing.

The quotes I copied are the basis of your argument. If they are not true the rest is meaningless.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

For deity's sake - the meaning is that it's a move from the rubber and that a jump turn is also a move from the rubber.

Not a jump turn in which the pitcher steps back.

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

The quotes I copied are the basis of your argument. If they are not true the rest is meaningless.

Oh, they're true. Try to understand them in the context of the rest of the argument. After you've done that, please show me where my logic is faulty.

[Lapopez]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

8.01(e) defines what you consider the pitcher IF he legally disengages (emphasis added) as described in 8.01 a and b - not as a separate thing.

This is patently FALSE! You clearly don't understand my dissertation. May I direct you to the chapter "Disengagement" for the discussion of this red herring.

[RPatrino]

Originally Posted by Rich

I've found a Robert Pariseau listed as a former (it appears) UIC of Little League District 15 in Massachusetts. What are the odds?

This Bob P is now in Washington. I remember the other Bob P though, and I do recall he posted on the LL boards I used to frequent.

[Lapopez]

When debating, it's very important to understand your opponents argument so that, if you disagree with the conclusion, you can formulate your own argument that directly and specifically contradicts it. Rich Ives, based on your recent posts, I am not convinced that you understand the arguments put forth in my dissertation.

I've been trying to understand yours, and I think I do. The cornerstone is the section of the MLBUM that we both quoted. You are taking a specific jump turn, as described in the MLBUM, where a pitcher steps with his pivot foot toward third base and extrapolating the conclusion to a different jump turn in which the pitcher (Cain) steps back. In light of the language of 8.01(e), I find this to be wrong, but I am grateful we have finally come to a point where I can agree to disagree. Finally the voters have an issue to consider: whether your extrapolation of MLBUM properly supersedes 8.01(e). Obviously I don't think so and it's nice to finally have a big dog in my camp. Furthermore, it's time for me to go to bed. GOOD NIGHT!

[johnnyg08]

The MLBUM citation some of you are using is a jump turn in front of the rubber. In the Cain play, he stepped back. Stepping back does not apply to what is being posted about jump turn from MLBUM. This has happened to me before...it happens so fast, they likely didn't remember what they saw and botched the award. This should have been a two base award and it wasn't and they got away with it w/o an ejection.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

That's not what Cain did. Cain stepped back

Good grief. Make up your mind, will you? You can't say it's a jump turn and also say he stepped back. They are diametrically opposite conclusions.

For the record, please look again at the video ... exactly what direction did his pivot foot go? It gains significant ground toward third base. Yes - it moves slightly back as well, but it still fits within the description you quoted (and simultaneously said you couldn't find... Meh Huh?)

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Lapopez

Furthermore, it's time for me to go to bed. GOOD NIGHT!

How can you possibly sleep when someone on the internet is still disagreeing with you?

[Lapopez]

Practically, you call what you see.

[You can stop there, unless you're interested in a dissertation.]

From the beginning, I've held the umpires blameless. Maven straight out ASSUMES they saw the step back and ruled (!) it a jump turn (where do you stand on this now, babe?). I don't subscribe to UES's slippery slope business either. Carl says he never sees the Cain move, but Carl regularly does a little better baseball than I do. As in 1999, I still see the Cain move often. The frequency diminishes as the age and skill level increases. The older boys are losing precious fractions of a second stepping back and turning (Cain) rather than just turning (MLBUM). From a practical standpoint, if I couldn't see the step back, I'll rule as the MLB umpires did in the Cain play. You can't call what you don't see. To the offensive coach, "I'm sorry Skip, he was so quick, I didn't see the step back. Please go back to your dugout now as I really don't want to run you for something I missed."

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

The MLBUM citation some of you are using is a jump turn in front of the rubber.

Where in any interp anywhere does the landing place of the pivot foot on a jump turn come into consideration? The only concern should be gaining distance and direction with the free foot.

[Lapopez]

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.

You know what I find ironic, Rich, is that you'll notice in my dissertation I placed you in the unknown column. This is because prior to my dissertation, your only contribution to this thread was the above "deity" quote. It's now clear which side you're on, and thus, to whom your quote was directed. Do you find it disconcerting that your cornerstone has crumbled? You have a choice to step back and consider other views, even those that conflict with your long held beliefs, decide whether to change your views, or continue the righteous indignation you continue to display.