R1 off 3B with the pitch; comes to a stop when batter does not swing. F2 steps out in front of plate and fakes throw towards 3B; R1 starts back to 3B.

Ball is returned to F1 in circle who turns and looks at R1. R1 stops and looks back at F1; then, within a second (or so) turns and continues back to 3B.

Would you allow that second stop? Or call R1 out?

WMB

I would think that since F1 didn't have the ball in the circle for the first stop of R1, that first stop wouldn't really be a stop. The second stop would be the first one in your situation, I think.

ASA Rule 8.7.T.1

The runner is out when a runner is legitmately off a base after a pitch or as a result of a batter completing a turn at bat, and WHILE THE PITCHER HAS CONTROL OF THE BALL within an eight foot radius of the pitcher's plate, the runner may stop once, but then must immediately return to the base or attempt to advance to the next base.

ASA POE 33B says the same thing just simplified.

I would allow the stop. I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong.:)

BigUmpJohn is 100% correct. The first stop, as well as anything else the runner does before F1 gets the ball in the circle, means absolutely nothing in terms of the look-back rule. See the ball in the circle in the possession of F1 (and make sure BR has reached 1B), <i>then</i> watch the runner.

As the other guys have said, the "stop when batter does not swing" is before the LBR goes into effect, so it means nothing. The restrictions on the runner only go into effect when the rule goes into effect (pitcher has the ball in the circle, BR, if applicable, has achieved first). She can shuck and jive all she wants before that.

Another question, though... would you consider the F1 turning and looking at R1 to be making a play?

F1, if she "casually" turns and looks at a runner, has not made a play.

But as for the previous question... and yes, I know that from previous posts, I believe my opinion on this will be different than most on this board...

My understanding is that the player "may stop once". However, when the pitcher has received the ball and R1 has continued to third, she has made a commitment in returning. At that point she has given up her right to stop once.

Speaking FED, there is <b><i>absolutely nothing</i></b> I know of in the current rule book that supports my belief on this. The only support is the history of the look-back rule, at least in the history of it since 1990 when I got involved. Again, speaking FED, the rule just went through a major re-write that was supposedly for clarification and not content change. With the discussions generate in the two local organizations I am in, and on the couple of boards I visit, I would hope either wording or cases will be added to further clarify or to confirm that "content change" concerning this rule really was intended.

I agree with Dan. If I read the post right, the runner had already taken a few steps back to the base, after the ball was in the circle. To me, that is the commitment I've always looked for. If she stops again, without a play being made or faked, it's an out.

And the interpretation we got on the Fed rules are just ludicrous. I hope some of the situations involved don't come up on my field, because I'll have to enforce the rules, even if I highly disagree with the interpretation we are told to enforce.

Rick

Firt stop meant nothing, F2 not F1 had the ball and
fake.

I don't fell simply turing and looking as making a play, but
have seen worse interpretations of the rule. Hell, I know guys
that would have nailed runner on F2's fake, if runner stopped
then started back, then turned and started back when ball thrown
to F1.
In either case stated, I would not have an out.

JMO,
glen

That's the beauty of ASA's interpretation of a play.

Any act by the pitcher which in the umpire's judgment causes the runner to react is considered a play. No specific move or fake is required. It is pure umpire's judgment, but how is the umpire going to know to what the runner will react? Casually turning toward the runner and moving the ball to the bare hand could be considered an act to which the runner could react.

Ain't life grand!

Sorry, my bad for hijacking the thread. I do think the making a play issue with ASA's interp is an interesting discussion topic, but we should take it to another threadMaybe for FED, but ASA is somewhat self-contradictory on this in the POE. This is not quite the same as the 2 stops question, but I can see ruling a LB violation based on commitment to 3rd.

ASA Rule 8-7T.1The runner in WMB's situation met all of the conditions here (legitimately off the base, etc.) Yet, ASA POE 33 saysThe runner also meets all of these conditions.

So, which is it? Is she allowed to stop? Or, is she required to continue non-stop?

<b>. . . the runner had already taken a few steps back to the base, after the ball was in the circle. To me, that is the commitment I've always looked for. If she stops again, without a play being made or faked, it's an out.</b>

Can't go along with you there. The first stop is irrelevant since the ball wasn't in the circle. The runner is allowed to change direction once <i>after</i> the pitcher gains possession of the ball in the circle. The runner may have been in motion when F1 got the ball, and the runner may have continued in that direction for several steps, but she is still allowed one stop, after which she can go either way.

It is true that POE #33 contains a sentence that apparently contradicts 8-7-T-1:

POE #33:

If a runner is moving toward a base, other than 1B, when the pitcher receives the ball in the circle, that runner must continue toward that base or be called out.

8-7-T-1:

When a runner is legitimately off a base after a pitch or as a result of a batter completing a time at bat, and while the pitcher has control of the ball . . . the runner may stop once, but then must immediately return to the base or attempt to advance to the next base.

The problem with the sentence from the POE is that everyone knows of instances when it does not apply. For example, if a runner who has received a base on balls has rounded 1B and is <i>moving toward 2B when F1 gets the ball,</i> the runner can still continue to move toward 2B—even proceed to within an inch of 2B—and then stop, reverse direction, and return to 1B.

If you accept POE #33, then the runners in the original case and the latest by gm are both out. If you accept 8-7-T as written (while the pitcher has control of the ball . . . the runner may stop once) and accept that POE are not really rules, then the runner is safe.
I firmly believe that applying the SOTR gives the benefit of the doubt to the runner in all look-back cases. It is one of the worst possibilities for nit-picking. But then if all you care about is 42 and going home ...

As with most plays of this kind, this one is YAHTBT call. Personally I would allow the stop, but she had better be on the move pretty darn quickly, cause if she aint on the move by the time that I decide that the pitcher isn't making a play on her, then "Bam, she's out."

SamC

I tend to agree with Sam and Dan. The purpose of the rule, as I understand it, is to prevent the offense from attracting, creating, or tempting the defense into making a play so that the offense can possibly advance a runner after the play is basically over (pitcher has the ball in the circle and would be preparing to deliver the next pitch if it weren't for the antics of the offense).

Runner returning to 3rd and then stops to do a little stare down with the pitcher... anything more than a very slight hesitation should be rewarded with an out. JMHO :D

The ASA POE #33 statement about approaching 1st "If a runner is moving toward a base, other than 1B," I assume means the intial approach of the BR and not the runner who has already passed 1st base and is now returning??? Anyone wish to clarify?

e.g. R1 & R3, pop up fly to pitcher, R1 steps a few steps off of 1st and stops to watch the catch, pitcher catches the ball in the circle, pitcher turns to look at off base R1, R1 while staring down with the pitcher begins movement toward 1st and then stops a couple steps short of the base. I feel R1 is tempting the pitcher to make a play (purportedly so R3 could score). Unless the pitcher makes some form of a play, I think the proper call is - R1 is out. R1 only began motion after the ball was in the possession of the pitcher in the circle and only stopped once after beginning that motion. I don't think that POE #33 should save this runner from enforcement of the Look-Back Rule just because they are headed BACK to 1st base... and I believe the LBR is appropriate for this type of situation.

I agree with everything you just said. If the pitcher catches the ball in the circle, and R1 is stopped there staring at the pitcher, she doesn't get another stop.

However, in the original situation. The catcher had the ball as the runner was moving back to 3B. The pitcher then gets the ball and then R1 stops. I feel she is allowed this stop because the pitcher now has the ball in the circle according to 8.7.T.1. As Mike said, it's all judgment, though, so my interpretation may be different.

With the second question, turning and looking isn't a play, IMO. If the pitcher has the ball in their hand and is cocked back and ready to fire, then that's a play.

It's all judgment folks.

Think of it this way. Would you allow the runner to stop and go home? If not, she's out... but in this case, I believe you would. She's allowed to stop once - that's very clear in the rules. If the stop is brief, and she heads on to 3rd (or home for that matter), she's fine. It's the second stop that is illegal, and this girl didn't make a 2nd stop.

(As to the other scenario - if she's stopped when the ball is caught in the circle, that IS her first stop. She has to pick a direction and go that way without stopping again.)

Just look for a way to get an out. If the opportunity is not there, play ball.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk...e/pftroest.gif
Sorry fellows, but discussing the 'look back' rule is like beating a dead horse to me.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/dark2.gif

Elaine and her smilies....
 

Elaine.....I noticed that you seem to be posting more often since you mastered the smilies!!!!

:D

"Sorry fellows, but discussing the 'look back' rule is like beating a dead horse to me."

I thought it was a legitimate question; asked because I will be covering this subject in local association classes this winter. I respect the opinions expressed here and it insures that I am teaching correctly.

The L-B rule in not in effect until the pitcher has the ball, thus any stops or other motions prior to that point should not be L-B violations. However, I know that many umpires consider the initial stop, when traveling away from a base, to be the runner's legal stop. I wanted to hear which way this board went. A couple would call the runner out in the scenario I presented, but most agreed to follow the rule literally. So I have my answer. Sorry if achieving it bothered you.

WayTom

DTTB: "The purpose of the rule, as I understand it, is to prevent the offense from attracting, creating, or tempting the defense into making a play so that the offense can possibly advance a runner after the play is basically over."

Can't agree, Tony. What will you do with the runner that starts to steal 2B and stops, forcing F4 to run after her while R1 on 3B tries to steal home?

I have always felt that the L-B rule was written to eliminate a form of taunting and game delaying. I'm talking about the game playing between a runner of the base and the catcher or pitcher with the ball. The defender fakes, the runner moves a step. The defender gets closer to the runner, the runner gets closer to the bag. Finally the defender runs all the way to the bag and the runner finally steps on the bag. Then finally, we set up for the next pitch - and get to do it all over again!

The L-B rule took all that out of the game. Just return the ball to the pitcher, and the runner has to do something. It does not prevent the runner from advancing a base; it doesn't penalize a legitimate runner. It just takes away the game playing and moves the game faster.

WMB

Did someone delete a post between the two WMB post
or am I missing something? http://www.spao.de/pict/smilies/nut.gif.

glen

Maybe it was pollywolly60? I got a notice he responded.

[Edited by whiskers_ump on Oct 3rd, 2003 at 03:04 PM]

I think the questions posed were entirely legitimate. The differences of opinion and interpretation suggest that there's considerable confusion as to what exactly to call.

I do believe the rule was instituted to prevent runners from "playing games" with the defense. Still, the spirit of the rule takes you only so far. I think the best policy is to follow the book (ignoring certain exceptions: for example, if the runner returns to 1B with the ball in the circle, and then in turning her foot to get ready to run upon the release, she moves it an inch off the base for half a second, that's not a violation).

Not only do stops before the ball is in the circle not count as stops, they also have no bearing on anything that happens after the ball gets into the circle. Nothing that the runner does before the ball gets into the circle affects the look-back rule at all. See the ball in the circle first, then look at the runners.

I agree with WMB and greymule here, DTTB. I've always believed the rule was there to prevent delay. While it does not really stop the F2 - runner stuff, it does put a stop to it once F1 has the ball - the runner has to either attempt to advance or give up immediately.

As to the original situation, I would not call that runner out for the reasons already stated.

Regarding the statement in POE33 on runners moving toward a base etc., I was just looking to spark some conversation about that sentence and how everyone applies/ignores it, since it does seem contradictory.

WMB, I'd be interested in how you plan to address this in your class.

papa smurf:

I replied after Elaine's post, and then deleted my reply because I didn't like the way it read. It wasn't really a reply to anyone's post, it was just a question. I just went to my rule book and read some more. I think I'm clear on my question now. The statement that caused my question was the runner going non-stop from first to second on a walk, and then stopping two steps from second (after the pitcher has the ball) and returning to first. My original reaction was "out!", but that would not allow for a stop for the runner. However, I feel that the runner had already committed to second. I originally thought that would never happen, but then my husband (also a blue) mentioned that scenario to try and get a third base runner home. So I think I still have an out. I think.

No, not an out. The runner gets her one stop.

"WMB, I'd be interested in how you plan to address this in your class."

Ignore it! (Just as I do - as you well know - with another POE!:p

Actually, it is a NFHS clinic; our association trains and schedules umpires for 50+ area high school's BB and SB games. As we do have some crossover, I will note areas where ASA and NFHS agree and/or disagree, but the primary focus is on NFHS rules.

As far as the POE statement, I've always felt that it was directed at a runner on her initial move towards a new base. Say R1 on 3B and R2 stealing 2B. The ball is returned to F1 and R2 stops short of second and decides to return to 1B in order to draw a throw. According to the POE she would be called out, but the rule does not support that interpretation.

To make this even more absurd, suppose a pitch gets away from F2, and R1 on 2B takes off for 3B. F2 pounces on the loose ball and flips it back to F1. R1 hits 3B fast and takes one or two steps toward home (as F1 receives the ball), then puts on the brakes and dives back into 3B. Are you going to call her out because she did not continue to home? I don't think so.

Until we get a better explanation of that particular sentence in the POE, I think that we have to igore it.

WMB

Well, Maybe the horse aint dead yet.

8-7-T-3a, may seem contradictory with POE statement;
If a runner is moving towards a base, other than first base, when the pitcher recieves the ball in the circle, that runner must continue toward the base, or be called out.
As I interpret the scenario of running almost to second after a walk and then retreating back to first, I would have to call an out. It seems the "spirit" of the rule would have been violated is this case. The POE I feel gives the right to take second, but once committed, the runner can not return. A stop after rounding first by a step or two is not the same as a stop two steps from second.

I am the other half (actually 3/4 or more) of PollyWolly (above), and we have been beating this horse at home too! need more games to call! Actually, I have seen a retreat such as this, and it was done to draw a throw/start a run-down to allow runner from third to score. As I understand the LBR, this should not be allowed.

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that F4 has the ball? If F4 has the ball and is chasing the runner, then obviously a play is being made and the Look-Back-Rule is not applicable. Play continues and the runner from 3rd can advance.

My point, and maybe I didn't say it well, was this rule is to prevent the offense from initiating a play after everything is done/stopped. The BR that passes first and then stops to face off with a pitcher that has the ball in the circle is, in my opinion, attempting to attract a play. They are taunting the pitcher. The runner cannot stay here (off the base). And any actions by the runner to now attract a play is illegal as follows: the runner must IMMEDIATELY decide which direction to go and then MUST CONTINUE in that direction to the base or until the defense makes a play. Once the defense makes a play the runner can change directions or do whatever is necessary to avoid being tagged out. But the runner cannot make moves in one direction and then stop to see what the pitcher does; cannot move in halting motions; cannot take a hard step in one direction and then run in the other; cannot move and stop. These type of actions are illegal and a dead ball should be called, stopping movement of all runners, and the taunting runner called out.

I think we both agree on this, but I'm not sure.

In my opinion, the runner that passes their base and tries to attract a play by the defense has basically said "I am a sacrafice so that my teammate can score. Make a play on me." But they cannot try to establish themselves in a hot-box using the style of actions I stated above (attempting to extend the play) if the defense is not willing to make a play. Run directly to 2nd, stop and run directly back to 1st, these are OKAY. But you cannot taunt the defense if they are not making a play. That is the illegal action.

I hope I have said this better and that you agree WMB.

Tony, :)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JEL
[B]Well, Maybe the horse aint dead yet.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JEL
Well, Maybe the horse aint dead yet.



I am the other half (actually 3/4 or more) of PollyWolly (above),
Wooooow, PollyWolly, JEL kinda left you in the cold...http://www.spao.de/pict/smilies/scatter.gif

funning, glen

Papasmurff, I had a BIG sister, Had to get little wife!

Trust me, she can hold her own!