NLCS blown base award

Welpe

UES wrote
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.

Agreed.

umpjim

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

Steven Tyler

UES wrote
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.

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

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?

Manny A

UES wrote
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.

Wuss. 😛

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.

MD Longhorn

zm1283 wrote
That is a clear disengagement and should be a two-base award. That is not a jump turn or jab step.

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

MD Longhorn

Manny A wrote
If he had executed this move to feint the runner back to first, you might catch heck if you balked him.

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.

zm1283

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

Yep.

bob jenkins wrote
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.

MD Longhorn wrote
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

rpumpire wrote
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?

MD Longhorn

zm1283 wrote
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.

maven

johnnyg08 wrote
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

Manny A wrote
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

Manny A wrote
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.

zm1283

MD Longhorn wrote
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

RPatrino wrote
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.

maven wrote
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.

MD Longhorn wrote
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.

MD Longhorn

zm1283 wrote
His foot is clearly on the ground behind the rubber and the ball is still in his hand.

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.

RPatrino

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