look back rule

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.