NLCS blown base award

[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.

[Welpe]

I think breaking this video down in slow motion only is actually doing a disservice.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I think breaking this video down in slow motion only is actually doing a disservice.

Agreed. This wasn't your classic jump turn, but close enough for government work I suppose.

[Mrumpiresir]

When F1 begins to turn his body and starts to throw before his foot hits the ground I have a move from the rubber. Not a distinct and separate disengagement. My vote is Jump Turn. 1 Base award. And I will balk him if he doesn't throw.

[RPatrino]

I am in total agreement that the slow motion analysis of this has done us a disservice. While it has created debate, healthy at times, it hasn't really helped us from a training perspective. Bottom line, the professionals on the field made a call, maybe that is our training for this situation??

I also agree that because there was no clearly discernible pause and break of hands when backward step off the rubber occurred, we don't have a 2 base award. Again, clearly this is my opinion on this, others mileage will and has varied.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

OK, fair enough, I understand the confusion now. I've fixed my original post. My explanation seems to clarify what I meant, but I see your disagreement now.

The ball was out of the GLOVE hand before he stepped back - not a legal disengagement - the foot movement was not part of a disengagement, therefore he's not disengaged.

I don't think umpires get this nitpicky on balks. I still maintain that this happens all the time (Not necessarily at the MLB level) without a throw and no one balks it.

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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.)

I understand what the rule says, but how it is actually enforced is different in my opinion. If we balked every pitcher every time they made ANY movement before their entire pivot foot landed entirely on the ground behind the rubber, we would be ran out of town.

I'm not saying it is both a legal disengagement and a jab step. I'm saying if you want to call it something other than disengaging, it is closer to being a jab step than a jump turn like some people were calling it earlier.

Originally Posted by RPatrino

I am in total agreement that the slow motion analysis of this has done us a disservice. While it has created debate, healthy at times, it hasn't really helped us from a training perspective. Bottom line, the professionals on the field made a call, maybe that is our training for this situation??

I also agree that because there was no clearly discernible pause and break of hands when backward step off the rubber occurred, we don't have a 2 base award. Again, clearly this is my opinion on this, others mileage will and has varied.

Fair enough. I know we don't take intent into consideration very much, especially with regard to pitching rules, but I think Cain was intending to disengage here. I realize that ultimately is irrelevant, but I thought it was interesting to note. That may have looked different in real time with no replay, so I can see why they only awarded a base.