look back rule

IRISHMAFIA

gfleischer82 wrote
Look Back rule.

Batter get base on ball. Runner runs around 1st toward 2nd. A ball is returned to pitcher. A runner kinda slow down then proceed to 2nd. Is runner out due to look back rule violation? Since the runner is commited to 2nd base?

To start, I hope the defense appeal the BR failing to touch 1B 😀

The runner is not committed to 2B, did not stop, did not reverse direction.

There is no call to be made here.

CecilOne

mcrowder wrote
There is no such thing as a runner being committed to a base. Not even sure what you'd be referring to there.

NFHS 8-7-4

gfleischer82

ASA:

a runner did not stopped or changed directions.

just like running fast slow down then run fast (changing speed) toward 2nd base after base on ball

bluezebra

IRISHMAFIA wrote
To start, I hope the defense appeal the BR failing to touch 1B 😀

The runner is not committed to 2B, did not stop, did not reverse direction.

There is no call to be made here.

I believe the poster did not mean missed 1B, though it's worded awkwardly.

Bob

bluezebra

gfleischer82 wrote
Look Back rule.

Batter get base on ball. Runner runs around 1st toward 2nd. A ball is returned to pitcher. A runner kinda slow down then proceed to 2nd. Is runner out due to look back rule violation? Since the runner is commited to 2nd base?

As others said, a runner is not "committed" to a base. Only managers and coaches should be "committed", but not to a base.

Since the runner did not stop, the "look-back" rule is not in effect. She/he could walk as slowly as she/he wants, as long as moving.

Bob

wadeintothem

What age group was this? 12U friendly rec?

Its such a common thing to do.

Lucky for yall she didnt run all the way home.

gfleischer82

14U friendly.

She did touched first base. Then to 2nd base.

IRISHMAFIA

bluezebra wrote
Only managers and coaches should be "committed", but not to a base.

I don't know about that. There are a few that I think should be committed to a base.......in Irag or Afghanistan.:eek:

Just kidding!

mcrowder

CecilOne wrote
NFHS 8-7-4

Which says what?

The runner may be required, based on certain actions, to continue in a certain direction, but she certainly is not "committed" to a specific base. The runner in the OP could have continued all the way home if she wanted.

Dakota

mcrowder wrote
The runner may be required, based on certain actions, to continue in a certain direction, but she certainly is not "committed" to a specific base. The runner in the OP could have continued all the way home if she wanted.

OK, you keep bringing this back up. ASA 8-7-T uses the term "committed" in reference to a base in 3-c, d, and e.

CecilOne

mcrowder wrote
Which says what?

The runner may be required, based on certain actions, to continue in a certain direction, but she certainly is not "committed" to a specific base. The runner in the OP could have continued all the way home if she wanted.

Come on Mike, the word "committed" is used in that rule.
Now you made me look it up:
in c: "is committed to second"
in d: "is committed to first"
in e: "is committed to first"
🙂

mcrowder

Fair enough - my bad!

I now think, instead, that the rule is worded poorly. They are not really committed to a base - technically they are committed to either run forward or run backward without stopping. Nothing says (especially in the forward cases) that they can't continue running. I guess I'm saying that the word "committed" here is misleading.

But yeah - I'm wrong as to whether that word appears on the rule. My apologies.

CecilOne

mcrowder wrote
Fair enough - my bad!

I now think, instead, that the rule is worded poorly. They are not really committed to a base - technically they are committed to either run forward or run backward without stopping. Nothing says (especially in the forward cases) that they can't continue running. I guess I'm saying that the word "committed" here is misleading.

But yeah - I'm wrong as to whether that word appears on the rule. My apologies.

Good point, but I would like to challenge you/anyone to create wording that the rules makers, interpreters, etc. can't screw up, without having a full page POE on the subject.

How about something with advance/retreat as a viewpoint?

tcannizzo

mcrowder wrote
Fair enough - my bad!

I now think, instead, that the rule is worded poorly. They are not really committed to a base - technically they are committed to either run forward or run backward without stopping. Nothing says (especially in the forward cases) that they can't continue running. I guess I'm saying that the word "committed" here is misleading.

But yeah - I'm wrong as to whether that word appears on the rule. My apologies.

What if the runner ran backwards from 1st to 2nd and then forward from 2nd to 1st?:rolleyes:

wadeintothem

As long as we can complicate a discussion we've had a million times and all know the answer to by arguing semantics, I'm happy.