Balk controversy: disengage or jump turn?

[maven]

This is on my list of topics for discussion in our association next season. We need a principled way to distinguish disengaging from a jump turn: I saw this move done by HS pitchers several times this season. I was lucky: they all threw the ball. I'm not looking forward to calling this balk, which "everybody knows isn't a balk."

Apparently I don't know the new technique for embedding MLB video....

http://m.mlb.com/video/v427297983

[jjb]

Good Lord; those Umpires HAD to be talking about where to eat after the game.

Geez; It's a Balk, It's a Balk, it's a Balk.

1. You have to disengage by stepping BACK off the rubber; sorta, kinda, off the edge don't count.

2. If you disengage, you have to drop your hands to your sides.

Mattingly was stalling and I was waiting for Jim Joyce to start laughing at him.

FWIW I don't see this as a Jump Pivot; it's more of a Jab Step; either way, it doesn't matter. It's not a disengage.

[gnhbua93]

Is funny how a Joe West music thread created this one.

[Gfoley4]

1 hour ago, gnhbua93 said:

Is funny how a Joe West music thread created this one.

? This clip linked is from last year (when Schwarber was still playing)

[Jimurray]

2 hours ago, jjb said:

Good Lord; those Umpires HAD to be talking about where to eat after the game.

Geez; It's a Balk, It's a Balk, it's a Balk.

1. You have to disengage by stepping BACK off the rubber; sorta, kinda, off the edge don't count.

2. If you disengage, you have to drop your hands to your sides.

Mattingly was stalling and I was waiting for Jim Joyce to start laughing at him.

FWIW I don't see this as a Jump Pivot; it's more of a Jab Step; either way, it doesn't matter. It's not a disengage.

2. You do not have to drop your hands to your sides right away. In fact with a proper step back to dissengage the pitcher can feint or throw as he does this although there can be a timing issue in the FED rule. If the step is toward 3B it doesn't matter if it lands behind the rubber. I consider it a jab step and from the rubber although some MLB guys let someone get away with it recently.

[ricka56]

Jab step or ump turn, whatever you call it, don't call it a legal disengagement. PU and U2 can see it, need to call it. For BU (2-man), its tougher to see the pivot foot slide towards 3B. PU needs to get this. 

[DVA7130]

I'm not sure what I'm missing, but I don't see it. Could I get the explanation?

[maven]

I'm not sure what I'm missing, but I don't see it. Could I get the explanation?

When both feet move or are airborne together, it's a move from the rubber. When F1 feints, it's a balk.

[DVA7130]

3 minutes ago, maven said:

When both feet move or are airborne together, it's a move from the rubber. When F1 feints, it's a balk.

So this is well agreed regardless of where the pivot foot lands? I feel like this is going to cause havoc at the lower levels.

[noumpere]

9 minutes ago, DVA7130 said:

So this is well agreed regardless of where the pivot foot lands? I feel like this is going to cause havoc at the lower levels.

Why would it cause problems (or any more problems than any other balk call or non-call)?

[DVA7130]

The fact that I wasn't aware of this interpretation, and likely missed this 100 times, does not bode well.

I can see strong arguments that he disengaged, as in the video.

Does this apply to FED similarly?

[maven]

Same rule, same interpretation, all codes.

[noumpere]

53 minutes ago, DVA7130 said:

The fact that I wasn't aware of this interpretation, and likely missed this 100 times, does not bode well.

I can see strong arguments that he disengaged, as in the video.

Does this apply to FED similarly?

Unless all your games are solo, then I doubt you've really missed this 100 times.  Your partners would get it.

 

It's far more likely that you've seen a quick-but-legal step back-disengage and feint.

[kstrunk]

I called this last week and caught a storm over it. My explanation was "both feet airborn is a move, it's a jump turn, that the pivot foot landed behind the rubber does not by itself signify a disengagement. 

To this moment I'm not 100% sure if I kicked it or not, but right now I'm feeling better about it. 

[umpire_scott]

My partner got a pitcher on this over the weekend in a 16/17U tourney.  Coach came to me between innings asking for an interpretation.  He felt that the jump turn was "disengaging".  I explained that the the reason pitchers do the jump turn is to quickly step directly towards the base.  It is not to "disengage" the rubber.  Many coaches feel that any removal of the foot from the rubber is considered disengagement.  

I have two follow-up questions for this rule interp:

1.  So if they jump turn AND land behind the rubber but feint the throw this is considered a balk?  I would not have balked that because they met the criteria of being off the rubber.  Just want to be clear on this.

2.  I have heard the common theme of it being impossible to balk to second base.  Well it seems to me if you you can balk to first by jump turning and feinting the throw because you are still engaged with the rubber, then why can't you turn to second and still be engaged with the rubber and thus balk? 

[basejester]

13 minutes ago, umpire_scott said:

1.  So if they jump turn AND land behind the rubber but feint the throw this is considered a balk?  I would not have balked that because they met the criteria of being off the rubber.  Just want to be clear on this.

That's a balk.  The pitcher hasn't legally disengaged.  The whole thing is a move from the rubber.

In disengaging the rubber the pitcher must step off with his pivot foot and not his free foot first.

13 minutes ago, umpire_scott said:

2.  I have heard the common theme of it being impossible to balk to second base.  Well it seems to me if you you can balk to first by jump turning and feinting the throw because you are still engaged with the rubber, then why can't you turn to second and still be engaged with the rubber and thus balk? 

Feints to second from the rubber are legal.  Feints to first from the rubber are not.  Maybe I don't understand the question.

8.05 / 6.02 If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when—
(2) The pitcher, while touching his plate, feints a throw to first or third base and fails to complete the throw;

[noumpere]

47 minutes ago, basejester said:

That's a balk.  The pitcher hasn't legally disengaged.  The whole thing is a move from the rubber.

In disengaging the rubber the pitcher must step off with his pivot foot and not his free foot first.

 

Let me add that the disengagement must be a step with *only* the pivot foot and that the pivot foot must land before there's any other motion associated with a throw.  Now, we often give some leeway on that second part, but not on the first.  If both feet are in the air at the same time, it's a jump turn (of some sort) and a move from the rubber.

[umpire_scott]

On 6/12/2016 at 3:06 PM, maven said:

When both feet move or are airborne together, it's a move from the rubber. When F1 feints, it's a balk.

See I don't see both feet being airborne nor do I them moving together.  I see him step first with his pivot foot (legal), then step directly towards first (also legal).  To me where the balk occurs is the step with the pivot foot is more sideways and therefore does not fully disengage with the rubber.

[noumpere]

35 minutes ago, umpire_scott said:

See I don't see both feet being airborne nor do I them moving together.  I see him step first with his pivot foot (legal), then step directly towards first (also legal).  To me where the balk occurs is the step with the pivot foot is more sideways and therefore does not fully disengage with the rubber.

Then it was a jab step and a move from the rubber.  Or, it was an  "illegal disengagement".

 

But, if you click quickly on the play arrow (to advanced nearly frame-by-frame) you will see that it's a jump turn.  But, really, now, we are arguing semantics.

[Mad Mike]

A coach wanted a balk called yesterday when RHP steps to first with free foot, throws the ball, but does not disengage rubber with his pivot foot. I told him that I have never interpreted this as a balk. So long as the pitcher steps and throws, there is nothing illegal going on here. Now, it may look awkward but that does not make it illegal. Does anybody disagree? Why or why not?

[MadMax]

@Mad Mike, that is exactly what a thrown pickoff attempt should be. One motion with a completed throw.

In youth baseball, though, there are very few RHPs that can make that throw accurately, consistently. Additionally, there are very few F3s that are ironclad reliable in catching a less-than-stellar throw from F1; heck, there are very few F3s who know how to properly manage their position – where and when to hold a R1 on, how to receive a throw and apply a tag optimally, when and how to leave the bag on the pitch, etc. No one usually works with the kid! Coach's son is usually the SS or P (sometimes C, but if then, it's an AC).

Thus, young RHPs face a dilemma: try to keep a R1 on and not balk, or not put one to the fence (if the fence is even there) when their F3 doesn't realize he's supposed to be over the bag holding R1 on. So what coaches teach these kids is to step back first then turn and get a look at their target. If there isn't a point to throw it, then hold it and feint. If they do throw it, they're already oriented towards 1B, so the throw should be less dicey. The coaches drill this into their RHPs, and do many other coaches see it, before long, they don't know that the direct pickoff throw to 1B actually exists.

We can't say "Watch the Majors" any more, because there is such a hyper-emphasis on OBP and not committing outs on the basepaths (thanks Moneyball) no-one really threatens to steal anymore. There are miles of video footage of a pitcher's moves that coaching staffs don't dangle their baserunners out there to "get a look at his move"; coupled with that, the majority of F2's are highly proficient at cutting down a steal attempt without his F1 having to "tense up" the baserunner with a bunch of pickoff attempts. Nowadays, multiple pickoff attempts are done to tense up a hitter.

So, @umpire_scott, let me pose the converse question to you regarding your proposed situation. If your F1 performs that _exact_ same move and puts his pickoff into the seats, is it a 1-base award or 2-base award? Factor this in when contemplating that move and whether to balk him or not when feints.

[umpire_scott]

9 hours ago, MadMax said:

@Mad Mike, that is exactly what a thrown pickoff attempt should be. One motion with a completed throw.

In youth baseball, though, there are very few RHPs that can make that throw accurately, consistently. Additionally, there are very few F3s that are ironclad reliable in catching a less-than-stellar throw from F1; heck, there are very few F3s who know how to properly manage their position – where and when to hold a R1 on, how to receive a throw and apply a tag optimally, when and how to leave the bag on the pitch, etc. No one usually works with the kid! Coach's son is usually the SS or P (sometimes C, but if then, it's an AC).

Thus, young RHPs face a dilemma: try to keep a R1 on and not balk, or not put one to the fence (if the fence is even there) when their F3 doesn't realize he's supposed to be over the bag holding R1 on. So what coaches teach these kids is to step back first then turn and get a look at their target. If there isn't a point to throw it, then hold it and feint. If they do throw it, they're already oriented towards 1B, so the throw should be less dicey. The coaches drill this into their RHPs, and do many other coaches see it, before long, they don't know that the direct pickoff throw to 1B actually exists.

We can't say "Watch the Majors" any more, because there is such a hyper-emphasis on OBP and not committing outs on the basepaths (thanks Moneyball) no-one really threatens to steal anymore. There are miles of video footage of a pitcher's moves that coaching staffs don't dangle their baserunners out there to "get a look at his move"; coupled with that, the majority of F2's are highly proficient at cutting down a steal attempt without his F1 having to "tense up" the baserunner with a bunch of pickoff attempts. Nowadays, multiple pickoff attempts are done to tense up a hitter.

So, @umpire_scott, let me pose the converse question to you regarding your proposed situation. If your F1 performs that _exact_ same move and puts his pickoff into the seats, is it a 1-base award or 2-base award? Factor this in when contemplating that move and whether to balk him or not when feints.

Well I did look at the video more closely and I do see where it could be a "jump-turn".  But for arguments sake if he stepped back, but not far enough back to disengage then it would be a balk, so the base award would be for the balk, even if he chucked it into the seats (if you recall in my post I did say I thought it was a balk because he was still touching the rubber).  Now if he was off the rubber then you get the two base award.

[noumpere]

19 hours ago, Mad Mike said:

A coach wanted a balk called yesterday when RHP steps to first with free foot, throws the ball, but does not disengage rubber with his pivot foot. I told him that I have never interpreted this as a balk. So long as the pitcher steps and throws, there is nothing illegal going on here. Now, it may look awkward but that does not make it illegal. Does anybody disagree? Why or why not?

Can a LH pitcher throw to first from the rubber?  Yes, of course.

 

Do the rules distinguish between a RH and a LH pitcher?  No, of course not.

 

So, ...

 

(If you use that logic on the coach, they usually get it, althouhg they do sometimes wonder why they've "never" seen it.)

[umpire_scott]

16 hours ago, noumpere said:

Can a LH pitcher throw to first from the rubber?  Yes, of course.

 

Do the rules distinguish between a RH and a LH pitcher?  No, of course not.

 

So, ...

 

(If you use that logic on the coach, they usually get it, althouhg they do sometimes wonder why they've "never" seen it.)

Well it not only looks awkward, but it is also difficult to do athletically speaking.  If you move the free foot at all towards the plate prior to stepping directly towards first then you have a balk.  That is why you don't see lefties throwing to third and righties generally jump-turn or step off before throwing.  Clearly simply lifting your left leg and stepping towards first is more deceptive, but it also puts the pitcher in danger of balking.

[noumpere]

8 hours ago, umpire_scott said:

Well it not only looks awkward, but it is also difficult to do athletically speaking.  

No, it's not.  As long as the leg isn't lifted towards the "balance point", it's not a balk (well, absent any other move)  The key is to not focus only on the leg but on the totality of the move.  As a general guideline, if only the leg moves, the pitcher is making a move to get to the balance point; if the leg moves, the torso twists, the shoulders open up toward first, the hands separate -- it's a move to first.

 

And, pitchers successfully made the move for many years; I doubt they were more athletic then.