LBR (Again!)

[WestMichBlue]

It is known that the best way to learn something is to have to teach it. This is what I am going through as I prepare my teaching for our upcoming umpire classes/clinics. What is surprising is that, under scrutiny, rules that you thought you knew for years suddenly become unclear. So it is with a minor area of the LBR.

The issue is a B-R running (not rounding) through 1B towards right field. ASA or NFHS: There are four sentences dealing with run-through, three of which seem to be unrelated to LBR.

e) says that a runner who turns right must return to 1B. No stop, no decision – just go to 1B. Why? How is this LBR?

d) says that a runner who turns left and starts back towards 1B must continue to 1B. No stop, no decision – just go to 1B. Why? How is this LBR?

c) says that a runner who turns left and moves towards 2B – and stops – is committed to 2B and must go non-stop to 2B. Why can’t she return to 1B after the stop?

b) is the only one that follows LBR logic. It says that a runner that turns left – and stops – then must move non-stop to either 1B or 2B.

IMO, the first three are absolute garbage. They were just made up by somebody with no logical tie-in to the LBR. B is the only one needed (if it were re-worded to say “turns left or right”).

Fortunately, this situation will seldom happen. A B-R running through 1B indicates that he/she is trying to beat the play. For the pitcher to have the ball indicates that the fielder decided they did not have a play and, rather than chance a bad throw, simply flipped to ball to the pitcher. But if it did, would you know what to call. If I could go on any softball field in this country on some night in May, I doubt if I would find 1 umpire in a 1,000 that would know these four rules. (1 in 10,000?)

Any opinions as to why they exist? Do the first three make sense to you?

WMB

[shipwreck]

WBM, last fall I brought these same scenarios up. Most of them seem absolutely ridiculous to me. I never did get an answer that I felt comfortable with. Hope someone sheds sole light on this. it is kinda like the rule that says if a runner is going to a base other than first and the pitcher receives the ball in the circle, the runner must continue to that base or be declared out. P.S. That may be a POE rather than a rule. Dave

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue

The issue is a B-R running (not rounding) through 1B towards right field. ASA or NFHS: There are four sentences dealing with run-through, three of which seem to be unrelated to LBR.

e) says that a runner who turns right must return to 1B. No stop, no decision – just go to 1B. Why? How is this LBR?

It is a decisive rule. Players would run through 1B, turn right, saunter back toward 1B in foul territory and step over 1B and start toward 2B in an effort to get a pitcher to react. Coaches argument was that since the runner never actually stopped, she still has another stop left.

d) says that a runner who turns left and starts back towards 1B must continue to 1B. No stop, no decision – just go to 1B. Why? How is this LBR?

Another decisive rule. Runners would run through the bag, start back toward 1B and just before reaching the bag, head toward 2B for same reason as above.

c) says that a runner who turns left and moves towards 2B – and stops – is committed to 2B and must go non-stop to 2B. Why can’t she return to 1B after the stop?

Same as above.

b) is the only one that follows LBR logic. It says that a runner that turns left – and stops – then must move non-stop to either 1B or 2B.

Nothing new or exciting here, but it does not relate to running "through" 1B, but continuing to run (rounding) the bases.

IMO, the first three are absolute garbage. They were just made up by somebody with no logical tie-in to the LBR. B is the only one needed (if it were re-worded to say “turns left or right”).

Definitely have to disagree with this. Most, if not all rules are based on problems which occurred on the field and initiated at the coaching level. They were considered as an abuse of the LBR and were put into place to avoid the possible "stand-off" BS as there is no guidance on speed, a runner returning to 1B could take minutes to complete.

Fortunately, this situation will seldom happen. A B-R running through 1B indicates that he/she is trying to beat the play. For the pitcher to have the ball indicates that the fielder decided they did not have a play and, rather than chance a bad throw, simply flipped to ball to the pitcher. But if it did, would you know what to call. If I could go on any softball field in this country on some night in May, I doubt if I would find 1 umpire in a 1,000 that would know these four rules. (1 in 10,000?)

Another disagreement with this one. If the umpire doesn't know the rule, they either don't attend clinics or take the time to learn the rules, OR their UIC has failed to instruct them properly. BTW, it seldom happens because rules have been initiated against it. To remember how to rule, an umpire can think of the reversal of direction when the batter turns back toward the field as the "stop" allowed and handle it from there.

Any opinions as to why they exist? Do the first three make sense to you?

You asked for 'em, you got'em. And, yes, they make sense to me. Even though the NCAA allows a runner to turn back toward 1B and still have an option to go to 2B, once they step outside the extended basepath, they have committed themself to that base. IOW, the reversal (stop and turn) is to be treated as the allowed "stop" in the rule.

[WestMichBlue]

"To remember how to rule, an umpire can think of the reversal of direction when the batter turns back toward the field as the "stop" allowed and handle it from there."

Agreed - that is how I have always understood this rule. HOWEVER, rules B & C allow a stop after the reversal of direction - under your interp that would be the second stop - thus illegal and the B-R called out just for stopping.

"were put into place to avoid the possible "stand-off" BS as there is no guidance on speed, a runner returning to 1B could take minutes to complete."

Actually, the ASA POE suggests that a runner can stop as many times as she wants on her way back to 1B.

"If the umpire doesn't know the rule, they either don't attend clinics or take the time to learn the rules, OR their UIC has failed to instruct them properly"
AND
"Nothing new or exciting here (rule b), but it does not relate to running "through" 1B, but continuing to run (rounding) the bases."

I think that you proved my point, Mike, about lack of knowledge of these rules. Rule B does indeed relate to "running through the base towards right field." Rule A is for rounding 1B towards 2B. Rule A is typical LBR - allowed one stop, decide, then proceed non-stop to 2B or back to 1B. (I deliberately did not bring rule A into my discussion.)

Rules B thru E are for running through the base, and only rule B is a LB type of rule. With all due respect to your comments, I still think that C-D-E are garbage. Remove them from the book and nothing would change (assuming that B was modified to read "turn left or right, then stop, then go to 2B or back to 1B non-stop."

WMB

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by WestMichBlue
"To remember how to rule, an umpire can think of the reversal of direction when the batter turns back toward the field as the "stop" allowed and handle it from there."

Agreed - that is how I have always understood this rule. HOWEVER, rules B & C allow a stop after the reversal of direction - under your interp that would be the second stop - thus illegal and the B-R called out just for stopping.

Like a POE, it is an easy reference, not something cut into granite.[quote]

"were put into place to avoid the possible "stand-off" BS as there is no guidance on speed, a runner returning to 1B could take minutes to complete."

Actually, the ASA POE suggests that a runner can stop as many times as she wants on her way back to 1B.[quote]

No, it says as many times a "needed". i.e., put on a jacket, remove a shin guard, put on runner gloves, etc. It also notes that by doing so they cannot attempt to go to 2B which means the players and umpires can proceed to prepare to continue play without the need to steadily concentrate on this runner.

"If the umpire doesn't know the rule, they either don't attend clinics or take the time to learn the rules, OR their UIC has failed to instruct them properly"
AND
"Nothing new or exciting here (rule b), but it does not relate to running "through" 1B, but continuing to run (rounding) the bases."

I think that you proved my point, Mike, about lack of knowledge of these rules. Rule B does indeed relate to "running through the base towards right field." Rule A is for rounding 1B towards 2B. Rule A is typical LBR - allowed one stop, decide, then proceed non-stop to 2B or back to 1B. (I deliberately did not bring rule A into my discussion.)

Then why reference it here? I'm responding to your post, not what is in the book.

Rules B thru E are for running through the base, and only rule B is a LB type of rule. With all due respect to your comments, I still think that C-D-E are garbage. Remove them from the book and nothing would change (assuming that B was modified to read "turn left or right, then stop, then go to 2B or back to 1B non-stop."

WMB

If you think they are garbage, that's fine, you're allowed to have your opinion. But I disagree that all would be fine just with a l/r modification to B. For years umpires have been fighting the turn left/right myth. Read and apply the rules as written and all will be fine in the world. Decide to make editorial decisions and redefine the rule as you see fit and you are doing the teams a disservice. And may very well get caught in one of these situations as you know how much "knowledgeable" coaches love to screw with the rules and then the umpire if they think they can get by on one.

Just my opinion,

[CecilOne]

Let's remember that the LBR is really a casual reference to a rule about controlling runners. Just like D3K really should be U3K, this rule should be called CTR (control the runner) as the "look back" component is only part of it and the runner rarely "looks back" anyway. They either run back or keep going. Regardless of whether the 3 points mentioned are directly related to the normal run-stop-run aspects; they are restrictions placed on runers by the rules makers. The relationship to the reaminder of the rule is the timing and conditions of their being in effect.

I'm not saying that I like or dislike these restrictions, just that they are part of the CTR.

[WestMichBlue]

"LBR is really a casual reference to a rule about controlling runners."

I don't know about this "casual" bit, Cecil. I have a rule book in front of me (NFHS - Rule 8) that has a section (7) titled Look-Back Rule. I find the same title in capital, bold letters in ASA 8.7.T

IMO, the term "look-back" applies to the pitcher, not the runner. The pitcher has NO obligation for any overt action to force a runner back to a base. All she has to do is hold the ball and "look the runner back." Without this rule, the pitcher would have to take continuous action (steps, fake throws, real throws) to get the runner back. (And, as soon as she turned her back, the runner would step off again and start the whole process over.)

Technically, the pitcher does not have to look at a runner. In the real world though she will. Otherwise the runner might go forward rather than back.

"Regardless of whether the 3 points mentioned are directly related to the normal run-stop-run aspects; they are restrictions placed on runers by the rules makers."

But they are related! There are 5 rules that apply ONLY to the batter-runner when she reaches 1B AND the pitcher has the ball. (A) applies when the B-R rounds 1B and was not part of my original post. (It is a normal LBR).

The other four (B - E) are applied to a B-R overrunning 1B (continuing down the line into right field). (B) is a normal LBR. C-D-E actually violate the LBR. They do not allow for a STOP; they do not allow the runner to PROCEED NON-STOP to 2B or back to 1B.

IMO, they are garbage rules that do not belong in the book. Because of their convoluted logic, no player, coach, or even umpire is going to remember them on the field.

Only one rule is required for the B-R. Simply state that: when a B-R has completed a time at bat, including a base on balls or a D3K, and the pitcher has the ball in the 16' circle, and after passing 1B, the B-R may stop, but then must immediately return to 1B or attempt to advance non-stop to 2B.

The only thing you may want to clarify is the definition of a "stop" for a B-R overrunning 1B. Is turning around to start back towards the infield considered a STOP? Or is that part of the overrun process and the B-R would be allowed to stop after she faces the infield (and thus knows where the ball is). Either way, we can call it, but I would be inclined to favor the 2nd interpretation of a stop.

WMB

[SamNVa]

WMB,

I prefer to think of the LBR as a rule that says "if the runner does anything to cause the pitcher to LOOK BACK at her after she (the runner) has committed to a base, then she is out." Given this interpretation of the rule, I think rules B, C, D, and E make more sense.

• Rule B says that if a runner overruns 1st base, stops and turns around in place, she still has the option of finding the ball, then returning to 1st or trying for 2nd.
• Rule C says that if the runner overruns 1st and makes a agressive move toward 2nd then she is committed to 2nd and even though she is allowed her one stop it doesn't matter and she had best figure out a way to get to 2nd safely because if she does anything else, she's out.
• Rule D says that if the runner makes a big J move to the left then stops, that the stop doesn't matter either because she has committed to 1st and if she decides after her stop to break for 2nd, then she's out.
• Finally, rule E says that if the runner turns to the right, she is committed to 1st and cannot attempt to go to 2nd whether she stops or not.

Rules C, D, and E, IMHO, let the pitcher know when she can ignore what the BR is doing and concentrate on other runners, or on getting ready for the next pitch. Now I will admit that a pitcher would most likely not ignore a runner in case C, but the smart pitcher will realize that that runner is now a sitting duck. She basically has 60 feet to get that runner out.

I have called out a bunch of "clever" runners who, on a walk with a runner on 3rd, have run through 1st, made a hard left and taken couple of steps toward 2nd trying to get the pitcher to make a play on her, then stopped and started strolling back to 1st when the pitcher did not take the bait, and to a lesser extent, I have also called out runners who have committed to 1st without stopping (by making a J to the left or the right) then have broken toward 2nd when they realized that the pitcher was not paying any attention to them. Almost everytime, I have had an offensive coach come out to question me about the runner getting 1 stop to decide what to do. As I see it, rules C, D, and E and to a lesser extent rule B eliminate a lot of the gamesmansship that could go on at 1st after a walk, which after all is then intent of the LBR in the first place.

SamC

[FUBLUE]

To play devil's advocate, If a runner rounds first on a base on balls or on a play were the defense gives up, why should we call her out? Isn't she supposed to pick up the ball once rounding the base? Isn't she just being aggressive with base running?

Take this scenario: We have a runner on second and first, a base on balls to the batter, runner from second (R1) jogs to third and rounds it, picking up the ball when she rounds. For argument sake, let's say that R3 reaches first and stops on first simultaneously with R1's round of third. If we apply "committed to second" logic to R3, her round has "committed here home" and she must break for it. But no one calls here out, because she is rounding the base, looking for the ball (unless coach stops her).

Why can't a runner round first, stop and return? Is the intent of the rule to CONTROL THE RUNNER, or to get cheap outs?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by FUBLUE
To play devil's advocate, If a runner rounds first on a base on balls or on a play were the defense gives up, why should we call her out? Isn't she supposed to pick up the ball once rounding the base? Isn't she just being aggressive with base running?

Take this scenario: We have a runner on second and first, a base on balls to the batter, runner from second (R1) jogs to third and rounds it, picking up the ball when she rounds. For argument sake, let's say that R3 reaches first and stops on first simultaneously with R1's round of third. If we apply "committed to second" logic to R3, her round has "committed here home" and she must break for it. But no one calls here out, because she is rounding the base, looking for the ball (unless coach stops her).

Why can't a runner round first, stop and return? Is the intent of the rule to CONTROL THE RUNNER, or to get cheap outs?

I don't see an argument here. This discussion applies to the BR becoming a R and the rules mentioned are exclusive to that player. Any other runner is free to advance as they wish. Once the ball is in the pitcher's possession in the circle and the BR has reached 1B, that player is allowed one stop. Only at that point would they be committed to a base assuming the pitcher doesn't make a play or lose possession of the ball.

[SamNVa]

Originally posted by FUBLUE
To play devil's advocate, If a runner rounds first on a base on balls or on a play were the defense gives up, why should we call her out? Isn't she supposed to pick up the ball once rounding the base? Isn't she just being aggressive with base running?

Take this scenario: We have a runner on second and first, a base on balls to the batter, runner from second (R1) jogs to third and rounds it, picking up the ball when she rounds. For argument sake, let's say that R3 reaches first and stops on first simultaneously with R1's round of third. If we apply "committed to second" logic to R3, her round has "committed here home" and she must break for it. But no one calls here out, because she is rounding the base, looking for the ball (unless coach stops her).

Why can't a runner round first, stop and return? Is the intent of the rule to CONTROL THE RUNNER, or to get cheap outs?

FUBLUE,

The situation you brought up is covered in part A of rule 8-7-3 (FED), and it states basically what you have said, i. e. the runner is allowed to round the base, stop once and pickup the ball, then immediately proceed to 2nd or return to 1st.

The parts, B, C, D, and E, which we are discussing here apply to a BR who runs straight through the bag along the 1st base foul line and out into right field. WMB was questioning the need for sections C, D, and E of rhw rule and my post as an attempt too convince him that they are indeed necessary clarifications of the rule.

SamC

[FUBLUE]

The situation you brought up is covered in part A of rule 8-7-3 (FED), and it states basically what you have said, i. e. the runner is allowed to round the base, stop once and pickup the ball, then immediately proceed to 2nd or return to 1st.

The parts, B, C, D, and E, which we are discussing here apply to a BR who runs straight through the bag along the 1st base foul line and out into right field. WMB was questioning the need for sections C, D, and E of rhw rule and my post as an attempt too convince him that they are indeed necessary clarifications of the rule.

SamC [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, so why don't we apply the same logic to a BR becoming a R and rounding first base on a base on balls. They get one stop...plain and simple. As for the baserunner running through first, it's their right to run through first base.

I agree SamC, the rule is for clarification. It's not that difficult of a rule if we use logic...what is the purpose of the runners actions? If the runner turns right, they commit to first base. if the runner turns left, and moves toward (in our opinion) first base, they are committed to first base. If the runner turns left and commits to second, they commit to second. The difficult part I find when people look at this rule is when to determine a stop. What constitutes a stop? What is meant by stopping? (I recieved this question last night, "but she only changed her direction, not stop). Simply put, it's about reading too much into the rule. Someone earlier might have said that the purpose is to take away some of the gamesmanship that slows down the game. If we take this into mind when enforcing this rule, then it should be easy to enforce.

[Dakota]

Yes, this rule is different from the "normal" LBR conventions. In my view, the reason it is different is because the baserunning rules for the BR acquiring 1st base are different from any other runner at any other base.

The direction the BR moves after acquiring 1st does make a difference, LBR or no LBR.

If the BR rounds 1st, the runner is now liable to being tagged out.

If the BR runs through 1st, she is not. But, she can re-establish her liability by making an attempt at 2nd, feigned or real.

Mapping the LBR notion of committing to a base onto this is the reason we have all those IF-THEN subrules to deal the BR and LBR (IMO). They did not keep the "one stop" part of the LBR, but they did keep the "committed to" part.

(Inside comment/joke to WMB - see, I did that without mentioning advanced age!)