No I'm not. I'm not using that part of the rule at all. You're right that this rule doesn't apply ... which is why we've "excerpted" it.

6-2 (when the pitch starts), and 6-3-A (if you start, you must immediately pitch) is what we're talking about on this one.

6-2 The starts when the hands are separated.

6-3-A "Immediately" cannot possibly be construed to allow the pitcher described in the OP.

We cannot have an immediate delivery and include the stopping. This pitch is illegal.

Your paraphrase of 6-3-A is not accurate. It does not say "if you start, you must immediately pitch"

It says that you "can't make a motion to pitch without immediately delivering the ball to the batter"

My opinion all along has been that there has been no "motion to pitch" yet. The pitch has started by rule since the hands have separated, but the "motion to pitch" has not started.

I think we're at the point where discussion is no longer helpful. You're not going to believe the nearly unanimous disagreement with your point of view on this and the other forum. I suggest you ask this at your next clinic. I assure you this HAS come up more than once at clinics I've been to. TPTB are clear they want this called illegal.

There are a lot of things not worded perfectly in the rulebook ... but to lawyerize the rulebook so that every single term is defined would double the length of the book. When 99% of the umpires out there can read a set of rules and come to agreement on what it means ... and that meaning matches what is taught in clinics ... the fact that you can worm around with definitions of words (not terms defined for us at the beginning) to make the words fit what you WANT to be the truth doesn't really mean anything.

I'm positive, however, that it requires MOTION to separate one's hands, and that motion, given that it does, by rule, define the beginning of the pitch ... that motion of separating one's hands is "motion to pitch".

You ... however ... do what you will. I do urge you to ask someone higher up - someone you WILL believe if he tells you that what you want the rule to be and what the rule actually is meant to be are two different things. (I did the same... and with no intended offense to you, his reply was, "This is a stupid question - I know you know better.")