He's demonstrating a jab step, which is a legal move, and is considered a legal move from the rubber. However, his statement about having to disengage first is completely wrong.
First, a RHP does not have to disengage before throwing to 1B, though it is easy for the P to balk if he tries to do this.
Second, if P did have to disengage first, it's illegal to disengage forward from the rubber.
So, what he's showing happens to be a legal move, but his reasoning as to why it is legal is completely bogus. He knows how to make a pickoff, but he doesn't know the balk rules.
I'm not sure his use of the word "must" necessarily refers to rules, but to technique. Perhaps a knowledgeable coach could comment.
To me, a jab step is an almost simultaneous change of position of both feet; I'm thinking technique would require a solid (and set) back foot in order get accuracy and velocity to the base.
Are you kidding me!? You can't do ANYTHING with your pivot foot except move it STRAIGHT back off the rubber. If you disengage ANY other way it is a balk - come on guys!!!
See my response to NLL_Blue in another thread, Dave. I quoted what two authoritative rule interpretation manuals say about the jab step. As you will read, it is a legal move despite the pivot foot not disengaging straight back.
Totally legal move. The problem is he is showing it in slo mo, rather than in real time so it looks as if the pivot foot disengages from the rubber first (which in real time is simultaneous) and therefore legal. Besides being called a jab step it was once called a jump step, but now its refined I guess. Not a very good teaching tool IMO (the video)
Besides being called a jab step it was once called a jump step, but now its refined I guess.
OHB;
The Jab Step and the Jump Turn are two completely different moves.
You are correct that with the Jump Turn, both feet move simultaneously, in a jump from the rubber. The free foot must come down closer to first base, gaining distance and direction.
The video demonstrated the Jab Step in real time. That was not slo-mo. The pivot foot moves first, then the free foot steps toward the base, ahead of the throw.
Dont know if I agree with you Mason Dixon, it might be refined a bit, but it really isnt different. I guess its a matter of perception. "the main thing is deception" and if as you say his presentation is in real time, then his plant foot is being removed from the pitchers plate going forward? I will review the video again, and hope you will also. Don
"the main thing is deception"
OHB, deception is not illegal in baseball. Everytime a runner bluffs a steal, or a fielder fakes a throw, they are trying to deceive the other team.
Illegal deception that causes a team to gain an unfair advantage not intended in the rules, is what's illegal. MLB and others have decided that a jab step and a jump turn are NOT illegal deception.
This is what Jaksa/Roder says about the jab step:
“Jab" Step (of the pivot foot): In cases of a right handed pitcher throwing to first, or a left handed pitcher throwing to third, or any pitcher throwing to second, a pitcher can take a "jab" or "stutter" step with his pivot foot before stepping to the base with his free foot. The motion of the "stutter" step and the resulting step of the free foot must be fluid and continuous; if the two motions are not continuous, there is a balk. Of course, the latter step must bring the free foot at, and nearer to, the pickoff base.
As you can see, with the jab step there are two separate and distinct movements. First, there is the jab or stutter step with the pivot foot, then there is the step with the non-pivot foot gaining distance and direction toward the base.
The jump turn, as you said is done simultaneously.
if the two motions are not continuous, there is a balk. Of course, the latter step must bring the free foot at, and nearer to, the pickoff base...... Mason Dixon, arent you contradicting yourself? Rules states "IF THE TWO MOTIONS ARE NOT CONTINUOUS, THERE IS A BALK" yet you say the Jab Step are 2 separate movements? Im confused. Don
Fluid and continuous does not mean simultaneous.
It means without interruption.
Two separate movements can be fluid and continuous. In fact, they must be. That's why Jaksa/Roder says; If the two motions are not continuous, there is a balk.
The "Jab Step" is NOT simultaneous. The foot movements do not occur at the same time. They are not concurrent simultaneous movements. They are fliud continuous movements. One occurs before the other.
The "Jump Turn" is simultaneous. The foot movements are concurrent with each other.
Therefore, the "Jump Turn" and the "Jab Step" are clearly not the same movement!
Thanks again for proving my point.
Mason, we will never agree. You are taking words in the rule and imposing your own logic on them. Simultaneous cannot be interpretated any other way and your "Continuous" argument doesnt hold water since every movement is in some way continuous. This is part of the reason the Balk rule continues to be so mystereous. Vague interpretations and a failure to enforce the rule will continue to make this call difficult at best. In an earlier response to Big Dave you wrote " By the strictest interpretation of the rule this is a balk". I read what the rule book says and I dont devine what they MIGHT mean. Its like the strike zone liberties that the umpires have employed and have totally gotten away from the strike zone as written in the rules. These type of adaptations are wrong yet allowed to exist. Lets stop massaging the rules and get back to how they are written. Don
Mason, we will never agree.
That's a shame.
A mind is like a parachute. It works best when open.
I'm not sure that you even remember what you was arguing about anymore.
I'm not discussing whether or not the jab step is legal or not. It is legal because MLB says it is. They own the rules. End of discussion.
I thought we was discussing whether or not the jab step was the same as the jump turn, as you claimed it was.
The jump turn is done with simultaneous foot movements. The jab step is done as two separate foot movements done in a fluid and continuous movement. They're not the same. That was my contention.
and your "Continuous" argument doesnt hold water since every movement is in some way continuous.
It's not my "continuous" argument. That word is used by both Jaksa/Roder and in the MLBUM
This is what is written in Jaksa/Roder:
“Jab" Step (of the pivot foot): In cases of a right handed pitcher throwing to first, or a left handed pitcher throwing to third, or any pitcher throwing to second, a pitcher can take a "jab" or "stutter" step with his pivot foot before stepping to the base with his free foot. The motion of the "stutter" step and the resulting step of the free foot must be fluid and continuous; if the two motions are not continuous, there is a balk. Of course, the latter step must bring the free foot at, and nearer to, the pickoff base.
Here's what the MLBUM says:
It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pick-off move to first base by first moving his 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.
I'm pretty sure that their "continuous" argument will hold water, since they're the people who own and maintain the rules.
These type of adaptations are wrong yet allowed to exist.
They're allowed to exist because the rules makers, and the owners of the rules say they can exist.
In an earlier response to Big Dave you wrote " By the strictest interpretation of the rule this is a balk". After Further Review, I believe that I was wrong when I made that statment. It is indeed a balk to disengage the rubber by stepping forward. However, the jab step is not a disengagment. It's a pickoff move from the rubber. According to Jaksa/Roder and MLBUM, it's a legal move indeed.
Jaksa/Roder......MLBUM..... Gee the book I own and refer to, and by the way study is called Official Major League Baseball Rules? Do Jaska/Roda and MLBUM say anything about the strike zone? Don
Gee the book I own and refer to, and by the way study is called Official Major League Baseball Rules?
Those manuals help to explain how your rule book should be interpreted. They can explain it much better than I ever could. And they are authoratative. Their opinions hold water.
Do Jaska/Roda and MLBUM say anything about the strike zone?
They have lots to say about the strike zone. They cover every bit of the rule book.(and then some)
Mason_Dixon is absolutely correct. The only time he misspoke in this entire thread is when he said,
"...By the strictest interpretation of the rule this is a balk. ..."
because there is no language in the rule book which, even strictly interpreted, would suggest this (i.e. a jab step) is a balk.
Do you really not know what the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual (MLBUM) is?
Your assertion,
"...I read what the rule book says and I dont devine what they MIGHT mean. ...
is absurd on its face. The text of the rules is so full of ambiguities, inconsistencies, errors, and contradictions, that one MUST "...devine (sic) what they MIGHT mean..." in order to officiate a baseball game.
That's why the Office of the Commissioner of MLB publishes the MLBUM - to clarify what the correct official interpretation is for a number of these ambiguities. It also explains the existence of other repected interpretations manuals such as J/R, JEA, and the BRD.
You have tried to take the discussion on a number of tangents - for example, you introduce the red herring of the jab step not being a "simultaneous" move of both feet. Since the word "simultaneous" doesn't even appear in the text of Rule 8, I can't imagine why you thought that tangent was the least bit relevant, being the "originalist" you claim to be.
You seem to think "continuous" means "simultaneous" or "unitary" - it doesn't - it simply means "without interruption" or "without stopping".
You are the one who is clearly
"...taking words in the rule and imposing your own logic on them."
and your "logic" is clearly specious in reaching the erroneous conclusion you have come to.
Since you haven't actually said, what is the specific rule book language you think makes the jab step a balk?
an opinion is like a a$$hole, in that everyone has one.
Therein lies the problem. Everyone else is dealing with facts, and you can't let go of your opinion.
Put your personal opinion aside and let your parachute catch some air.
The Jab Step illustrated in the video, is a balk. Don
Let me see if I understand your latest argument:
Chris Jaksa is wrong.
Rick Roder is wrong.
Jim Evans is wrong.
The Major League Baseball Umpire's Manual is wrong.
The Professional Baseball Umpire Corp. Umpire Manual is wrong.
Every Major League Umpire who doesn't balk the jab step is wrong.
Every Minor League Umpire who doesn't balk the jab step is wrong.
All of the well trained participants on this board are wrong.
Don, the Old Hard Baller is right.
(Even though he has nothing to back up his argument.)
Mason Dixon, you finally get it ? lol The original video shown was a balk. The video shown of Lincecum was not based on the simultaneos or continuous movement of his feet. Don
"Are you kidding me!? You can't do ANYTHING with your pivot foot except move it STRAIGHT back off the rubber. If you disengage ANY other way it is a balk - come on guys!!! "
You're correct that to disengage, F1 must move his pivot foot straight back.
Where you seem to be confused is that the jab step (and the jump turn) are not disengagements. F1 still must throw to first, and if he throws the ball OOP, it's a one-base award.
You know guys - the balk rule exists so a pitcher does NOT gain an unfair advantage on the runner - we all know this. If you are going to throw to 1st base, a jump turn is legal as long as the lead (non-pivot) foot comes down gaining ground towards 1st base. This JAB STEP or whatever the group of "teaching the kids how to cheat" coaches are showing comes down to one thing. If you lift or slide your pivot foot to a different place than where it started, it is a balk. If you are going to throw to 1st base without stepping BACK, then you must pivot on it - hence the term 'pivot foot' while still in contact with the rubber. Any other motion with that 'pivot foot' other than stepping STRAIGHT BACK is illegal. I don't want to hear about being a 'rule book umpire'. If the pitcher moves his pivot foot, other than STRAIGHT BACK, he is trying to gain an advantage on the runner. Coaches that are teaching this are wrong in doing so and are hoping to take advantage of inexperienced umps in the process. Coaches - teach your kids the RIGHT WAY to play the game - not how to circumvent the rules!
This JAB STEP or whatever the group of "teaching the kids how to cheat" coaches are showing comes down to one thing. If you lift or slide your pivot foot to a different place than where it started, it is a balk.
Perhaps you should send a letter or email to the Commissioner Of Major League Baseball.
MLB doesn't see it as cheating.
The Major League Baseball Umpire Manual says:
It is legal for a right-handed pitcher to begin a pick-off move to first base by first moving his 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.
Coaches that are teaching this are wrong in doing so and are hoping to take advantage of inexperienced umps in the process.
To the contrary, Coaches who are teaching this are hoping that their umpires are experienced enough to realize that this is a LEGAL move.
Experienced coaches don't want "Rule Book Umpires" either!
"...Any other motion with that 'pivot foot' other than stepping STRAIGHT BACK is illegal. ..."
Why on earth do you think that?
There is nothing in the rule book that says that.
As a matter of fact, there is no constraint mentioned in the rule book on what the pitcher does with his pivot foot during a pick-off move to a base.
The free foot must gain distance and direction to the base, must land "ahead of the throw", and the move must be made without alteration or interruption. But NOTHING in the rule book constrains what the pitcher does with his pivot foot.
Additionally, as others have shown you, Official Interpretation clarifies that it is perfectly legal.
If you call this a balk, you are not being a "rule book lawyer", you're being a "make up your own rules" umpire.
I don't want to hear about being a 'rule book umpire'.
Well, then, I won't say it out loud in your presence. But I'll put it in writing here. You're being a rule-book umpire. You're ignoring years of accepted practice, and you're going to really confuse players who have been watching what pitchers in MLB routinely do.
Yes, to disengage, the pitcher must step backward off the rubber. But the jab step is not considered a disengagement; it is a move from the rubber.
I umpired a scrimmage for my son's adult men's team this last spring. I asked why they kept stepping back before throwing to first when the jab step is so much more effective, AND LEGAL.
The answer was: Because some umpires balk you if you don't.
Umpires like you, I guess. Who won't let a legal move be because they don't agree with it.
Rita before throwing your dog in the fight, I suggest you look at my posts of 11/9 and 11 /10 on this subject. I am not saying it is illegal , Im saying that the way it was presented in the video is. My disagreement with Mason Dixon is about whether it can be 2 separate movements. He says yes and I say no? Don
OH, I was responding to Big Dave, who tries to say something separate from your discussion. He tries to say he is a better umpire because he will call a balk on someone using a jabstep because he disagrees with its legality.
I watched the video. I agree with those who say the guy is just going slow motion to try to demonstrate a legal move and using incorrect terminology to explain it.
Bottom line, a jab step is a legal and good pickoff move. The video may not be the best.
Report Abuse
Re: Is this pickoff move advice correct Part 1?
Re: Is this pickoff move advice correct Part 1?
You just proved my point!!!
Re: You just proved my point!!!
Re: You just proved my point!!!
Re: You just proved my point!!!
I'm beginning to understand!
