NLCS blown base award

[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.

[dash_riprock]

There is nothing in the Rules or the MLBUM that says the pivot foot must be on the ground before the ball comes out of the glove in order for it to be a legal disengagement.

J/R says it is a legal disengagement if the pivot foot hits the ground "without interruption or hesitation and without a movement normally associated with his motion to pitch." This interpretation comes from 8.01(c) - the requirements for stepping and throwing to a base. Notably, 8.01(c) says the step must precede the throw, not some other event like the ball coming out of the glove.

In this example, the pitcher has done nothing that commits him to pitch. He has legally disengaged, but the umpire's judgment is that he has not, but rather executed a jab-step move resulting in a one-base award when he throws it away. There is no way any of his partners are going to step on that.

On the other hand, what if the pitcher had executed the identical move, but faked the throw? There is no way any Major League umpire is going to balk that (except maybe Balkin' Bob). Their judgment would be that the pitcher had legally stepped off.

Can they have it both ways? Sure. It all boils down to umpire judgment. It's a way for the umpires to enforce the 'no cheap bases' rule.

[zm1283]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

There is nothing in the Rules or the MLBUM that says the pivot foot must be on the ground before the ball comes out of the glove in order for it to be a legal disengagement.

J/R says it is a legal disengagement if the pivot foot hits the ground "without interruption or hesitation and without a movement normally associated with his motion to pitch." This interpretation comes from 8.01(c) - the requirements for stepping and throwing to a base. Notably, 8.01(c) says the step must precede the throw, not some other event like the ball coming out of the glove.

In this example, the pitcher has done nothing that commits him to pitch. He has legally disengaged, but the umpire's judgment is that he has not, but rather executed a jab-step move resulting in a one-base award when he throws it away. There is no way any of his partners are going to step on that.

On the other hand, what if the pitcher had executed the identical move, but faked the throw? There is no way any Major League umpire is going to balk that (except maybe Balkin' Bob). Their judgment would be that the pitcher had legally stepped off.

Can they have it both ways? Sure. It all boils down to umpire judgment. It's a way for the umpires to enforce the 'no cheap bases' rule.

This is exactly my thinking, but dash put it better. No MLB umpire is going to balk him for doing the same thing he did but not throwing.

[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.

[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.

[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.