NLCS blown base award

[UES]

Manny wrote: " Wuss "

LMAO! That was good one Manny

Seriously guys, I think we need to look at the big picture here... First of all, a strong case can be made for either award (especially when you look at it a couple times in slo mo). However, the REALITY is that sometimes, we're better off NOT making the "technically correct" call - especially the ones where a lot of us umpires can't even agree what the proper call should be.

I don't know Manny, but from what I have read, I do respect his opinion. If he was on my crew and we had to huddle up as a result of him making this call, I would back him on the field and support him because that's what we do when we're out there. However, in the lockeroom, I may ask him about it a little more and we, as a crew, can all discuss it further as part of our post game. Maybe after we all talk about it, opinions can change and sometimes, there is no wrong answer.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think giving a 2 base award on this play may be taking the sh!tty end of the stick. I don't think I would make that call but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong for taking a "pass" on it. Likewise, if someone chooses to call it and is 110% confident in his decision, I will support it...despite not necessarily agreeing with it. I think it's ok to agree to disagree sometimes - I think this is one of those times.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by UES

Manny wrote: " Wuss "

LMAO! That was good one Manny

Seriously guys, I think we need to look at the big picture here... First of all, a strong case can be made for either award (especially when you look at it a couple times in slo mo). However, the REALITY is that sometimes, we're better off NOT making the "technically correct" call - especially the ones where a lot of us umpires can't even agree what the proper call should be.

I don't know Manny, but from what I have read, I do respect his opinion. If he was on my crew and we had to huddle up as a result of him making this call, I would back him on the field and support him because that's what we do when we're out there. However, in the lockeroom, I may ask him about it a little more and we, as a crew, can all discuss it further as part of our post game. Maybe after we all talk about it, opinions can change and sometimes, there is no wrong answer.

The point I'm trying to make is that I think giving a 2 base award on this play may be taking the sh!tty end of the stick. I don't think I would make that call but that doesn't mean I'm necessarily wrong for taking a "pass" on it. Likewise, if someone chooses to call it and is 110% confident in his decision, I will support it...despite not necessarily agreeing with it. I think it's ok to agree to disagree sometimes - I think this is one of those times.

I agree with your post, but I just have one hang-up with the bolded part. I totally agree that when a partner has a call that is his to own and there is no crew huddle, I will support and back him 100 percent when questioned by a coach or anyone else. I'm of the opinion that if we huddle though, I am going to tell my partner exactly what I think so we have all information to make the call correctly. I think it is a disservice to the teams involved to withhold information during a crew pow-wow just to support your partner. It doesn't do the current game any good when we discuss it in the postgame conversation.

Do you get where I'm going here? I'm not saying not to support your partners, but if there is a huddle, we might as well get everyone's input if they are wanting to give information.

[DG]

Put me in with the "clear jump turn" crowd, in slo mo or regular speed.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by DG

Put me in with the "clear jump turn" crowd, in slo mo or regular speed.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Welpe]

Lapopez, do you have a point to this other than to provoke a response?

[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.

[UES]

ZM1283 wrote: "...I'm of the opinion that if we huddle though, I am going to tell my partner exactly what I think so we have all information to make the call correctly." ...It doesn't do the current game any good when we discuss it in the postgame conversation." ...I'm not saying not to support your partners, but if there is a huddle, we might as well get everyone's input if they are wanting to give information"

Great points and yes, I understand where you're coming from. I guess what I meant was that even if I personally disagree with his interpretation of the call (just my OPINION), I will still stand behind him as long as he can substantiate why he made the call that he did. Again, I'm not as concerned with what call was made as much as I am WHY the call was made. Does that make more sense???

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by UES

ZM1283 wrote: "...I'm of the opinion that if we huddle though, I am going to tell my partner exactly what I think so we have all information to make the call correctly." ...It doesn't do the current game any good when we discuss it in the postgame conversation." ...I'm not saying not to support your partners, but if there is a huddle, we might as well get everyone's input if they are wanting to give information"

Great points and yes, I understand where you're coming from. I guess what I meant was that even if I personally disagree with his interpretation of the call (just my OPINION), I will still stand behind him as long as he can substantiate why he made the call that he did. Again, I'm not as concerned with what call was made as much as I am WHY the call was made. Does that make more sense???

Yes, I see where you're coming from.

[jicecone]

I am not sure about "clear jump turn" however, I agree with the one base award.