NLCS blown base award

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I will happily be corrected if the live video is posted but from what I see this is a kicked call.

Yep.

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?

Legal. He disengaged with his pivot foot. This same play with the pitcher not throwing to first happens all the time and no one balks it.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You'd catch way more if you DIDN'T balk him. Your criteria are wrong.

Edit to add: Heck ... the ball is out of his hand BEFORE the first foot hits the ground. This is absolutely not a legal disengagement.

You must be watching video of a different play, because if you pause it at the 2 second mark, his pivot foot is clearly on the ground behind the rubber and the ball is still in his hand. Have your own opinion if you want, but don't blatantly make up things about the video that just aren't there simply to advance your point.

[rpumpire]

In a jump turn, both feet remain in front of the rubber. In this move by Cain, the pivot foot disengaged by stepping behind the rubber.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by rpumpire

In a jump turn, both feet remain in front of the rubber. In this move by Cain, the pivot foot disengaged by stepping behind the rubber.

That's what I'm seeing as well. What am I missing here?

[maven]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

That's what I'm seeing as well. What am I missing here?

You're accepting an incorrect definition of jump turn. It's defined more by what it isn't than what it is, and it isn't a legal disengagement.

Nothing requires that a jump turn have both feet in front of the rubber, or indeed both in the air at once. All that's required is a legal step and (if to 1B) then a throw.

[RPatrino]

If Cain hadn't thrown to first, would you have balked him? I would. Why?

His 'disengagement' and throw to first were in one continuous motion. This makes it a 'jump turn'. There was no distinct stop and drop of the hands, which to me would be a complete disengagement of the rubber. At this point, if he stopped, disengaged and then overthrew first, would be a 2 base award.

[Manny A]

Okay, then somebody please explain how a RHP executes a "jump turn". I always believed both feet had to come up simultaneously--in other words, the pitcher "jumps", which is why the move has that word in it.

Heck, to me, this looks more like a jab-step, but he "jabs" his foot behind the rubber instead of in front of it. And since the jab is behind the rubber, it constitutes a disengagement.

And, No, I don't have Jim Evans's balk video.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Okay, then somebody please explain how a RHP executes a "jump turn". I always believed both feet had to come up simultaneously--in other words, the pitcher "jumps", which is why the move has that word in it.

Heck, to me, this looks more like a jab-step, but he "jabs" his foot behind the rubber instead of in front of it. And since the jab is behind the rubber, it constitutes a disengagement.

And, No, I don't have Jim Evans's balk video.

Pitchers use a lot of different moves. Again: these moves are defined by what they are not. If F1 does not legally disengage, then whatever the move is must conform to the rules governing throwing/feinting to a base.

The reason the move in the video is not legal disengagement is that disengagement requires that the step be complete PRIOR to separating the hands or making any other move/step toward a base.

So Cain had to conform to the throw/feint rules, which he did (no balk). And that's why the award for the overthrow was correct.

Q.E.D.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Okay, then somebody please explain how a RHP executes a "jump turn". I always believed both feet had to come up simultaneously--in other words, the pitcher "jumps", which is why the move has that word in it.

Heck, to me, this looks more like a jab-step, but he "jabs" his foot behind the rubber instead of in front of it. And since the jab is behind the rubber, it constitutes a disengagement.

And, No, I don't have Jim Evans's balk video.

I think a lot of people mess this up by trying to give the move a name. "Jab step", "Jump Turn". Better to look at the rules and determine if he broke one. Since he did not legally disengage, he must throw. He did. No balk. If the pitcher did exactly what we see on this video but did not throw to first, you'd have a balk.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

You must be watching video of a different play, because if you pause it at the 2 second mark, his pivot foot is clearly on the ground behind the rubber and the ball is still in his hand. Have your own opinion if you want, but don't blatantly make up things about the video that just aren't there simply to advance your point.

Well, one of us is. This happens so fast that a lot of action happens at 0:01 and at 0:02 (the "two-second mark" has about 12 spots you can pause it at). But as you watch the little dot move on the bottom, the 7th spot of the dot (still 0:01) shows the hand starting to remove from the glove and the foot still up. The 8th dot (now 0:02), you can see the ball in the hand, separate from glove - with the toe pointing downward, but not on the ground. On the ninth dot (still 0:02), the foot has now barely hit the ground and the ball is most obviously out of the glove.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Well, one of us is. This happens so fast that a lot of action happens at 0:01 and at 0:02 (the "two-second mark" has about 12 spots you can pause it at). But as you watch the little dot move on the bottom, the 7th spot of the dot (still 0:01) shows the hand starting to remove from the glove and the foot still up. The 8th dot (now 0:02), you can see the ball in the hand, separate from glove - with the toe pointing downward, but not on the ground. On the ninth dot (still 0:02), the foot has now barely hit the ground and the ball is most obviously out of the glove.

You claimed that the ball was out of his hand before the pivot foot hit the ground. This screen shot says differently:



His foot is clearly on the ground behind the rubber and the ball is still in his hand.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by RPatrino

If Cain hadn't thrown to first, would you have balked him? I would. Why?

His 'disengagement' and throw to first were in one continuous motion. This makes it a 'jump turn'. There was no distinct stop and drop of the hands, which to me would be a complete disengagement of the rubber. At this point, if he stopped, disengaged and then overthrew first, would be a 2 base award.

Where does the rule say you have to stop and drop your hands to legally disengage? His first move was to move his pivot foot behind the rubber, thus disengaging.

Originally Posted by maven

Pitchers use a lot of different moves. Again: these moves are defined by what they are not. If F1 does not legally disengage, then whatever the move is must conform to the rules governing throwing/feinting to a base.

The reason the move in the video is not legal disengagement is that disengagement requires that the step be complete PRIOR to separating the hands or making any other move/step toward a base.

So Cain had to conform to the throw/feint rules, which he did (no balk). And that's why the award for the overthrow was correct.

Q.E.D.

I still would not balk a pitcher in this situation if he doesn't throw. It would be a very nitpicky balk, and a balk that very few umpires at higher levels would call.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I think a lot of people mess this up by trying to give the move a name. "Jab step", "Jump Turn". Better to look at the rules and determine if he broke one. Since he did not legally disengage, he must throw. He did. No balk. If the pitcher did exactly what we see on this video but did not throw to first, you'd have a balk.

He did legally disengage, so it can't be a jump turn. It was closer to a jab step, but he still put his pivot foot behind the rubber to disengage.

[RPatrino]

So what we are seeing here is a '12 eyed miss'? 6 professional umpires miss the same call? Highly doubtful.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by zm1283

He did legally disengage, so it can't be a jump turn. It was closer to a jab step, but he still put his pivot foot behind the rubber to disengage.

This illustrates why you don't understand that. A) this cannot be a legal disengagement - he has to step off BEFORE beginning to throw for a legal disengagement. B) Define Jump Turn and Jab Step ... using only the rulebook to do so. Good luck. Do you see a rule that states where the pivot foot must go to be a jab step? (PS - how could you call this a legal disengagement AND a jab step - it cannot be both... you have to throw after a jab step because you are NOT disengaged.)

[Rich]

This is not a "disengage first" move. After watching the video I can't believe anyone is still arguing that this was some kind of missed call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by zm1283

He did legally disengage, so it can't be a jump turn. It was closer to a jab step, but he still put his pivot foot behind the rubber to disengage.

Well after he started his move to first. It's not like the foot came back first (making him a fielder) and *then* he threw over to first base.