NLCS blown base award
 

Did anyone catch the blown base award on the pickoff attempt by Matt Cain in the bottom of the 3rd inning of today's NLCS game? Cain threw the ball out of play and the umpires awarded the runner second. But the replay clearly showed Cain had stepped off prior to the pickoff throw, so the runner should have been awarded third.

Not seeing it, was it possibly a jab step or jump turn?

Probably ruled the move a jump turn. That's more likely than such a basic mistake.

Here's a video:

http://s149.photobucket.com/albums/s...nt=pickoff.mp4

That is a clear disengagement and should be a two-base award. That is not a jump turn or jab step.

On the contrary, that's a classic jump turn. Perhaps the slo-mo is deceiving you.

Close enough to a jump turn for me - especially in LIVE speed. I think you're over analyzing it even though you may be "technically" correct. Let me put it to you this way...

Option #1: Award the runner second (pretty much what everyone is expecting) and continue the game with no further incident.

Option #2: Be a "hero", pull a 2 base award out of your a$$, point the runner, who has already stopped at second, over to third, try explaining to an irate manager that the pitcher became an infielder blah, blah, blah, huddle up with the rest of your crew who, like everyone else, is wondering what the hell you just called, and then watch yourself on the highlights 1000 times over the next day or so trying to defend a call that only you and maybe a few other internet umpires about how great of a call it was.

No thanks, I'll take option #1 Yeah, go ahead, call me a wuss and tell me I have no balls...I'd rather take a little crap from a couple of people than get dragged through the mud by everyone else in the world. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then call it a duck.

Agreed.

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

Six set of eyes on the play. No complaints. Let it ride.

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?

Wuss. :p

Seriously, that's not a jump turn, IMO. Both feet didn't go airborne simultaneously as he turned. He clearly disengaged and stepped back with his pivot foot first before his free foot became airborne. If he had executed this move to feint the runner back to first, you might catch heck if you balked him.

Perhaps in real time, it looked more like a jump turn than not. But the slo-mo replay is convincing enough, to me anyway, that this should have been a two-base award.

Um ... that's EXACTLY a jump-turn. Textbook.

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 glove BEFORE the first foot hits the ground. This is absolutely not a legal disengagement.

Yep.

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.

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.

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?

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'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.

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.

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.

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.

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

http://i1320.photobucket.com/albums/...ps44ad4977.jpg

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Manny wrote: " Wuss :p "

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Where have you gone Bob Pariseau?
 

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!

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 .

Good ole' Bob. Why use one word when a thousand will do just as nicely? LOL.

"Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side;"

I am aware of that Bob however, this idea of dropping the hands to the sides is only applicable to the windup.So i do not see were it is applicable here.

The statement about dropping the hands is a comment to 8.01 -- before parts (a) or (b) so it applies to both.

And, I assume it's a typo when you said BEFORE disengaging -- dropping the hands before disengaging is a balk.

Bob, is this still your opinion?

Ignoring any quibble over whether this was a jump turn or a jab step, etc -- yes. I have it as a move to first and a (correct) one base award.

In light of Bob P.'s explanation?

That explanation is consistent with ruling the move a jump step.

No it wasn't a typo, neither was "unless I am wrong here", which turns out to be the case.

Thanks

It's 12 Angry Men and I'm Jack Klugman
 

The best I can tell, here’s the tally:

One Base Camp (11): Maven, UES, Welpe, Steven Tyler, Bob Jenkins, MD Longhorn, RPatrino, Rich, Mrumpiresir, DG, Jicecone. (Notice any big dogs?)

Two Base Camp (7): Lapopez (me), RPumpire, ZM1283, Umpjim, Manny A, JohnnyG08, Dash_Ripock.

Unknown (1): Rich Ives

I only need to sway three people, and there are seven days left until the election!

I hope I can resurrect this thread that you’ll see I am very passionate about. Since I am in the two base camp, I obviously don’t agree with the arguments of the one base camp. I am more dissatisfied with the arguments put forth by the two base camp since, if for no other reason, not ONE person cited OBR 8.01(e)!

Play: The Cain pickoff/overthrow.

Ruling: Two Base Award

Rule Basis: OBR 8.01(e), and NOTHING ELSE.

Rule 8.01(e): If the pitcher removes his pivot foot from contact with the pitcher’s plate by stepping backward with that foot, he thereby becomes an infielder and if he makes a wild throw from that position, it shall be considered the same as a wild throw by any other infielder.

I. Disengagement
Those in the one base camp go to great lengths to assert that Cain did not legally disengage. Guess what, I completely agree. 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? Please cite a rule and show me where the following logic is faulty.

Based on Maven’s statements, I think he would agree with how I interpret the use of the word “disengage” as used in OBR 8.01 and 8.01(a). (That word is not used anywhere else in OBR!) Maven likes to clarify by adding the word “legally.” I have no problem with that and use “disengage” and “legally disengage” interchangeably. “Disengage" refers to the act of a pitcher stepping back behind the rubber with his pivot foot first AND dropping his hands. Cain didn’t drop his hands, so Cain didn’t legally disengage. However, it’s IRRELEVANT! Whether Cain disengaged is irrelevant to 8.01(e). To say that, in order to apply 8.01(e), a pitcher must legally disengage, is too restrictive. Notice 8.01(e) doesn’t even use the word “disengage.” A pitcher must merely step back for 8.01(e) to apply. Stepping back is only one component of legally disengaging. It is not necessary for the pitcher to drop his hands to invoke 8.01(e), only that he steps back. The question of dropping his hands is only relevant to determine if he legally disengaged. In other words, a pitcher may legally disengage and be subject to 8.01(e) but it’s not necessary that he legally disengage.

To determine if 8.01(e) applies to Cain requires no consideration as to whether Cain legally disengaged. The only thing we have to consider is whether Cain stepped back. This is not to say that 8.01(e) doesn’t apply to a pitcher who does legally disengage. On the contrary, since such a pitcher steps back, 8.01(e) also applies to him. It is faulty reasoning to infer that because Cain did not disengage, he maintained his status as a pitcher. Cain did not disengage and he STILL lost his status since he stepped back, as 8.01(e) stipulates.

II. Jump-Turn
Those in the one base camp go to great lengths to assert that Cain executed a jump turn. Guess what, I completely agree. Correct me if I am wrong but this is as I understand the one base camp: “A jump turn is a move ‘from the rubber,’ and as such, the pitcher remains a pitcher, even if the pitcher executes a jump turn in which he first moves his pivot foot behind the rubber.” Is that right? So, even a jump turn that involves first stepping behind the rubber, because it is a jump turn, it negates 8.01(e). Really? Prove it. Cite the rule. Based on what rule or official interpretation do you justify that because a pitcher executes a jump turn, 8.01(e) does not apply?

For those jump turns in which the pitcher remains in front of the rubber, that is, does not step behind the rubber, 8.01(e) does not apply, the pitcher remains a pitcher, and upon an overthrow, a one base award would be appropriate. For those jump turns in which the pitcher first steps behind the rubber, as with this Cain situation, 8.01(e) applies, the pitcher becomes an infielder, and upon an overthrow, a two base award is appropriate. It’s that simple.

III. Bob Pariseau
I really feel I understand the one base camp. Why? Because it’s what I thought when I posed my question on McGriff’s (and reprinted above) back in 1999 when Bob answered me. Bob clearly demonstrated that the dropping of hands/disengaging discussion is a red herring to 8.01(e).

[I’m trying to be very careful with my choice of words here in order to distinguish physically breaking contact with the rubber and “disengaging,” as I defined above.] In 1999 I thought, “When a pitcher breaks contact with the rubber by stepping back, he is required to drop his hands, and if he doesn’t drop his hands, then he remains a pitcher, and upon an over throw, a one base award is appropriate.” This is wrong. Let me rewrite this correctly, “When a pitcher breaks contact with the rubber by stepping back, he may then choose to disengage by fulfilling the obligation to drop his hands, or he may choose to complete a jump turn. In either case, since he stepped back, the stipulations of 8.01(e) apply, namely, by stepping back he became an infielder, and as such, the award of bases on the overthrow are the same as with any other infielder.”

If my logic with that is faulty, please show me how. If I’m wrong now, then my green umpire instincts back in 1999, prior to when I asked this same Cain scenario and Bob answered, were correct. I cannot believe Bob P. misled me, so please show me how I am misinterpreting Bob’s excellent answer to my question.

IV. Umpire Speculation
I find it very ironic on an umpire forum, where many take great pride in pointing out the mistakes of MLB umpires, that those same people, will argue based on the premise that because the umpires in Cain's play awarded one base, it was the correct award.

The following is part of an email conversation between an umpire colleague and me regarding the Cain play:

Colleague: I've been saying that the umpires must have decided that the stepping back was part of a continuous motion and that it was not completed prior to the pickoff move, so 8.01(e) didn't apply.

Me: This "continuous motion" garbage verbiage you're using--what rule are you using to justify this language? You're speculating as to why the umpires ruled as they did. Since I am a proponent of 8.01(e) and think this reasoning (continuous motion verbiage) is wrong (read: garbage), I do not speculate that the umpires would use that as the reason for their decision. I assume they know the rules. It must be something else. Maybe they're copouts and, as you once said, are choosing the decision that they think would cause the least disagreement. But I definitely don't think this little of MLB umpires. I have to believe it's something else. Perhaps, as has been suggested in the thread, Cain was so quick, they didn't notice that he stepped back, and that watching the video in slow motion is doing the umpires a disservice. What else can it be? You and no one else in that thread have proffered any rule book citation or official interpretation that contradicts or supersedes 8.01(e).

[Sorry for being so verbose, but hey, I’m a disciple of the great Bob P.]

--Paul

No offense to Bob Pariseau, but I found him to be more verbose than great.

Do you have a tl;dr version of the novel above?

Sometimes you just have to umpire.

Yes, OBR 8.01(e).

Ok, Cliffs Notes Version
 

The biggest myth perpetuated in this thread is that in order to apply 8.01(e), a pitcher must disengage, that is, step back AND drop his hands. Invoking 8.01(e) ONLY requires that the pitcher step back, not also drop his hands.

You omitted the 6 professional umpires working the game, whose call was the only one that mattered.

Ok, but in this instance, hasn't the pitcher started the throw to first before he finished stepping back? So he had not yet complied with 8.01(e) because he threw to first while in the process of stepping back.

No, I addressed this in the section "Umpire Speculation." Please, keep it coming.

Was his pivot foot still in the air? I'm having a hard time visualizing a person having the ability to do that.

Then rewatch the video :D

Seriously though, the turn to first starts at the shoulders while the pivot foot is in the air.

Lapopez/Paul,

This may sound like a "political" answer, however, I will say it anyways... the Cain move, TECHNICALLY, may be considered as a throw by an infielder (ie., step back off the rubber = two base award). With that said, his move was so unique and happened so fast that I myself did not pick it up in real time and since 6 other MLB guys on the field took a pass at it, then I will go with the masses. As I mentioned, given the same circumstances in which the play happened, I think you would be taking the sh!tty end of the stick if you award the runner 3B (even though you may have been technically correct to do so).

Balks in general, can be a slippery slope. There are times when you have to enforce them to the letter of the law, and there are times where you just go with the flow and let the game play out. This move, in my opinion, was one of those times that you give the runner 2B (what 99.9% of the people that were playing & watching expected) and just move on. Ofcourse, if you're that guy who wants to prove to the world that you're technically right...be my guest. Do me a favor though, save it for a game that I'm not working on your crew ;)

Dear UES,
 

If the play were on an OBR umpire test, how would you answer?

You don't have to attempt to visualize ... we're discussing an ACTUAL play here.

So the "wild throw" (yes, that's the verbiage in 8.01(e)) took place prior to Cain landing his pivot foot behind the rubber?

Before you answer that, consider Rule 7.05(g) AR: "The term “when the wild throw was made” means when the throw actually left the player’s hand..."

With respect to UES's post above...
 

Does everyone in the one base camp agree with me "technically"? If you want to argue what is prudent "practically," lets start another thread. I'd like to debate the "technical" aspects in this thread, or at least wait until there is consensus on the "technical" before we go to the "practical." I do have opinions on the "practical" as well.

Yawn, pass. It's a jump turn, ruled a jump turn. I posted my view in post #6.

You go ahead with whatever it is you think you're doing.

Funny, I said it was a jump turn too.
 

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Pot meet kettle.

If you think it was a jump turn, then why do you keep posting novels that it wasn't. (If you can't answer that in 4 sentences, I won't read it so don't bother.)

Obviously not.

I posted somewhere what I think the basic mistake the "two base" believers are making. I do not think a jump turn requires that the pivot foot remain on or in front of the rubber. It can go behind the rubber. It's how you execute the jump that matters, not where your pivot foot lands.

Did you actually read the section "Jump Turn" in my novel?

Did you actually read the section "Jump Turn" in my novel?

Rich Ives,
 

I've added you to the one base camp. :(

It's a different opinion. So what?

No, it's the same opinion...
 

... but somehow you come to a different conclusion. I FULLY agree with you when you say, "I do not think a jump turn requires that the pivot foot remain on or in front of the rubber. It can go behind the rubber. It's how you execute the jump that matters, not where your pivot foot lands." The second paragraph in my "Jump Turn" section illustrates that I agree with this.

I directed several questions in my "Jump Turn" section to one basers. Care to address any of them?

Is it pride?
 

The secondmost pervasive myth in this thread is that a "jump turn" (including those jump turns in which the pitcher first steps behind the rubber), in and of itself, negates 8.01(e).

For those who agree with the above, that is, for those for whom the above statement is not a myth, cite the rule that supports it, and thereby supersedes 8.01(e).

Back to the MLB umpires
 

I did not add them to the tally in my novel because they have not posted to this thread. In light of the fact that many people here consider it a disservice to the umpires that we have the benefit of a slow motion replay, I refuse to assume that the umpires were able to ascertain that Cain stepped back.

But again, please, keep bringing up the red herrings, Maven.

8.01(e) does not apply because the jab step and jump steps are considered to be moves from the rubber.

IOW because they are from the rubber the bit about becoming an infielder because he stepped off doesn't apply because he's still considered on.

The ruling about the jab step is in writing in the MLBUM. The jump step is considered as being in the same category by interpretation.

I'm sorry, I cannot speak to what you are saying without reading the text of the MLBUM, for which I have been tearing up my room looking for. Would you mind quoting the pertinent section?

ETA: I cannot believe I can't find my MLBUM. I'm so frustrated right now. Sorry.

I don't mean to be rude, but I'm calling BS on this.
 

[Sorry, I went to CDP in July and my MLBUM was still in my suitcase!]

I cannot find any such language, Rich. I found this though, "It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pick-off move to first base by 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 is considered to be in contact with the rubber when he makes his throw to first base." (Bold emphasis is original to citation.)

Wow! Bob's quote was from 1999. When did the MLBUM become publicly available? He sure was ahead of his time.

It was a jump turn.

Or not.

JJ

I think you have something there.
 

Let me catch you up in the thread. No one is disputing that Cain executed a jump step anymore. (I never did.)

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

Mr. Lopez wrote me to ask my opinion. Here is my reply:

I stayed out of the thread because a lot of other "Big Dogs" went with the MLBUs.

They're wrong, at least according to the video.

It seems obvious that Cain disengaged by stepping back of the pitcher's plate. When he threw away the ball, that's the classic example of: "One from the mound, two from the field."

My opinion: The crew missed it. They has been a lot of rationalizing and bombast. But where I've called, if I didn't send that runner to third, I would have to send the offensive coach to the showers.

You may quote me on this in your next post.

Paul replied he wouldn't quote me. So ... I've quoted myself.

Let me add this: Where I've called, on the jump spin the pitcher's pivot foot NEVER winds up behind the rubber. Generally, it's more toward the third-base side of the diamond. I'm talking about games played from PONY through NCAA D1 and MSBL games.

Someone wrote about balking this move if the pitcher DID NOT throw to first. If it's a jump spin, then BALK. If it's a step off the rubber (as the video shows), it's not a balk but a bluff.

Two bases, guys. Two bases, guys.

Oh, I called my first game in March of 1954. My most recent game was fall high school ball on Thursday, October 25.

Thanks Carl!
 

I'm going to grab a seat on the sidelines now. I'll update the tally on election day, November 6, 2012.

ETA: I've got:
One Base Camp=13
Two Base Camp=8 (Thanks, Carl)
Unknown=1 (JJ)

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

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.

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?

I so wanted to take a break from this. Darn OCD!
 

"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.)

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.

No blaspheming now!
 

Not a jump turn in which the pitcher steps back.

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.

I missed a very important part of your post!
 

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.

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.

Something to debate
 

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!

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.