ASA POE on Look Back

[WestMichBlue]

Lifted this issue from eteamz.

In the middle of a paragraph in POE33 E is a sentence that seemingly is not connected to any other sentence. Thus it has to stand alone, but a literal interpretation would negate the basic rules of the LBR.

The sentence is: "If a runner is moving towards a base, other than first base, when the pitcher receives the ball in the circle, that runner must continue towards that base, or be called out."

What happened to a runner being allowed a Stop? To then either go forward, or back?

Is this a timing issue? Of when the pitcher receives the ball (vs has possession of the ball)?

1. Suppose R1 on 3B; and R2 on 1B makes a casual attempt to steal 2B, hoping to draw a throw. Instead the ball is sent back to the pitcher. If R2 now stops - is she out?

2. Suppose B1 is walked and F2 holds the ball until B1 turns at 1B to go towards 2B. Now F2 throws to F1 - and B1 now has to go all the way to 2B or be called out?

3. Suppose R1 is off 2B, and F2, with the ball, fakes R1 back towards 2B. F2 throws to F1 who turns and looks at R1. R1 stops - and decides to continue back to 2B. OUT?

Do you think that any of the above are illegal actions? If not, then do you have any idea what the writers are trying to say with this sentence? Is there a particular action that they are suggesting is illegal.

WMB

[chuck chopper]

InASA cases 2 & 3 a play has been constituted thus the look back rule is dropped. Once the pitcher "makes a play" & that does not require the ball to be thrown, then its back to live action again.
In case #1 if that's what the rule book says I don't particularly care for it. You would think the runner should be allowed to stop, decide immediatley which way to go, then go. A hesitation would be grounds for an out I would think. That's my 2 cents.

[Dakota]

Basically, when enforcing the LBR in the past, I have ignored the statement in question in the POE. It never made any sense to me stand-alone (and I could find no context in the POE where it did make sense; it is kind of in the middle of a discussion of BR responsbilities, but even considering the technical issue that a BR becomes a runner once passing 1st, the sentence still makes no sense to me...) It seems to be in direct contradiction to 8-7T-1 of the rule itself.

BUT...

Upon closer inspection, the POE seems to have re-written the rule. This had to have been intentional, but why wasn't the rule itself changed?

Here is the rule (I've bold-faced what are substantial differences between rule and POE...)

ASA Rule 8-7T-1.

When a runner is legitimately 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.

Here is the opening paragraph of the POE
ASA POE 33 (2003)

When a runner is legitimately off a base after a pitch or as a result of a batter completing a turn at bat, and is stationary when the pitcher has the ball in the circle, the runner must immediately advance to the next base or immediately return to the base left.

Notice that the POE, in restating 8-7T-1 removes the allowable stop, and further make the whole paragraph only apply to a stationary runner.

IOW, the POE seems to be explaining a different rule than the rule book contains.

The case book sheds no light since there is no case listed that covers this specific point about the allowable stop. It would appear that the POE has removed it - the runners are no longer allowed a stop, according to the POE.

[Dakota]

Further thoughts...

I'd always understood the opening paragraph of the POE to have been written at a point in time later than 8-7T-1. IOW, in rationalizing the difference, I concluded that the POE was written to describe the situation after the allowable stop. Based on that, I ignored the sentence later in the POE about if moving having to continue in that direction.

Now, I'm not so sure. My older rule books are at home, so I can't check back and see if perhaps the POE and the rule at some point got out of sync with a rule change, and if so, what that might mean for the proper interpretation of the situations WMB raises.

[bluejay]

Just a little while ago I was asked a question regarding the difference between the FP pitching rule and the POE describing it. I said that POE is there as a further explanation of how to interpret the rule itself and where there is a difference between the two we should rely on the rule. Most of what is in POE is excellent and helpful but at times some small word or phrase may be left out which can be confusing. IMO the rule would supercede any such confusion caused by POE.

[CecilOne]

Dakota,
"This had to have been intentional" might be the worst assumption I've heard from you. We seem to have proven again and again that there is no coordination or editing involved with the rule book(s).

All,
I have never believed a POE supercedes a Rule, as they are intended to be explanations or clarifications even when they are not.

I don't see a direct contradiction between the phrases Dakota quoted:
1) "while the pitcher has control of the ball within an eight foot radius of the pitcher's plate, the runner may stop once"
2) " and is stationary when the pitcher has the ball in the circle".
If the runner is stationary, the runner has stopped. If the runner is not stationary, meaning has not stopped, the runner "may stop once". So, #1 covers not stopped yet when F1 receives the ball and #2 covers already stopped. Either way, the important is not remaining stopped.

As said above, the phrase "continue towards that base" in the comment "when the pitcher receives the ball in the circle, that runner must continue towards that base, or be called out" contradicts everyone's understanding of the rule (see #1 above). I would not call an out in any of WMB's examples.
Besides, the "other than first base" phrase is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. If a runner is moving toward 1st, LBR or not, the runner can not retreat.

The "make a play" factor only applies to F1, not F2. And even in #3 which is a play (F1 turns and looks); the issue is not whether the LBR applies but whether the quoted POE wording negates the runner's option to go either way.

For NFHS purposes, 8.7.1.A clearly says move either way.


[Edited by CecilOne on Feb 13th, 2004 at 12:49 PM]

[greymule]

Part H of POE 33 is badly written. The first sentence, which appears to apply to any runner, is patently false—the runner is allowed a stop. The sentence also contains a puzzling exception: "other than 1B." Then, without any logical transition, the second and third sentences narrow the subject to a runner who has overrun 1B.

At that late point, the relevance of the phrase "other than 1B" in the first sentence is revealed as applying to a runner who has overrun 1B. Obviously it does not apply to all runners. A runner who has rounded 1B, run halfway to 2B, and started back toward 1B cannot "stop as many times as needed" on the way if the pitcher has the ball.

The fourth sentence appears to be connected to the second and third, until the terms "original base" and "another base" lead us to believe that we're back to talking about "any runner," not the runner who has overrrun 1B.

The fourth sentence also contains an error. It says that if the runner stops or reverses direction he is out unless the pitcher makes a play on him. Technically, this is saying that if the runner reverses direction and then the pitcher makes a play on him, he is not out. It should read, "unless the pitcher has made a play on him." The play has to come before the reverse of direction. Verb tenses in English do have a purpose.

[Dakota]

Originally posted by CecilOne
Tom,
"This had to have been intentional" might be the worst assumption I've heard from you.

I appreciate the compliment, but modesty requires that I admit that this is far from the worst.

We seem to have proven again and again that there is no coordination or editing involved with the rule book(s).

Yes, but this seems to be just a bit too specific to be just another ASA fractured syntax problem.

All,
I have never believed a POE supercedes a Rule, as they are intended to be explanations or clarifications even when they are not.

I don't see a direct contradiction between the phrases Tom quoted:
1) "while the pitcher has control of the ball within an eight foot radius of the pitcher's plate, the runner may stop once"
2) " and is stationary when the pitcher has the ball in the circle".
If the runner is stationary, the runner has stopped. If the runner is not stationary, meaning has not stopped, the runner "may stop once". So, #1 covers not stopped yet when F1 receives the ball and #2 covers already stopped. Either way, the important is not remaining stopped.

This is what I was trying to say with my follow-on post.

As said above, the phrase "continue towards that base" in the comment "when the pitcher receives the ball in the circle, that runner must continue towards that base, or be called out" contradicts everyone's understanding of the rule (see #1 above). I would not call an out in any of WMB's examples.
Besides, the "other than first base" phrase is inconsistent with the rest of the sentence. If a runner is moving toward 1st, LBR or not, the runner can not retreat.

IOW, you've decided, like I had previously before my recent bout of second-guessing, that this sentence makes no sense and should be ignored. That's the way I have called it, and will continue to do so, barring some authoritative resolution of the POE mystery.

BTW, I agree with Cecil in no LBR outs in any of WMB's cases (with the assumption that the "must continue" sentence in the POE is erroneous).

[WestMichBlue]

Looks like we may be agreeing that the sentence is just plain wrong, and to ignore. In this same vein, let's have a little fun with the NFHS Case Book that is somewhat similar.

8.7.1 Sit.A has R1 off 3B, F1 has ball as walked B-R runs to 1B. They correctly note that the LBR is in effect as soon as B-R touches 1B. The next sentence is: "At that time, all runners on base must immediately move forward or return to their base."

Whaaat?

WMB

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
... snip ... The next sentence is: "At that time, all runners on base must immediately move forward or return to their base."

Whaaat?
WMB

Yes, that's the rule if you recognize that "on base" means being a baserunner, not necessarily touching an actual bag. Same context as "get on base" or "on base %".

On the NFHS forum, it was said that in Alabama the BR must actually get to 2nd if continuing to run past 1st before the rule applies. Not so, by rule. But I posted this theory and I wonder what those who skip the NFHS forum think about it.

The spirit of the rule is to prevent base runners from disrupting and delaying the game; given the short base distances. The "BR gets to 1st" aspect was added to avoid runners being called out for taking a lead while seeing where the throw would go or the outcome of a play at 1st. The logical extension of that thinking would be that the non-BR base runners are not exposed to the rule until play stops. Even if base runners like R1 in the examples actually stand still for a moment, the rule needs to be changed so the ball can not become dead while any runner or BR is still moving.
IMO, the choice would be the rule does not apply; but a DDB would be a little better. And it is not comparable to an interference dead ball because interference actually prevents the defense from continuing the play to their best ability.

[WestMichBlue]

Well, Cecil, if "on base" equal "runner" then isn't the sentence "all runners on base" redundant?

If all runners must immediately go forward or backward, then we are back to what started this thread - what happened to the stop?

IMO, what the writer should had said is "runners that are stopped (when the B-R touches 1B) must immediately move forward or return to their base."

A runner that is stationary off the base when the LBR comes into effect has had their stop. They must immediately move; they can not stop again. The LBR comes into effect when the pitcher has the ball, or when the pitcher has the ball and a walked batter touches 1B.

WMB

[CecilOne]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
Well, Cecil, if "on base" equal "runner" then isn't the sentence "all runners on base" redundant?

If all runners must immediately go forward or backward, then we are back to what started this thread - what happened to the stop?

IMO, what the writer should had said is "runners that are stopped (when the B-R touches 1B) must immediately move forward or return to their base."

A runner that is stationary off the base when the LBR comes into effect has had their stop. They must immediately move; they can not stop again. The LBR comes into effect when the pitcher has the ball, or when the pitcher has the ball and a walked batter touches 1B.

WMB [/B]

IMO, all of your points are correct, including agreeing with my "no coordination or editing involved with the rule book(s)" comment.