The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
look back rule look back rule
Register FAQ Members List Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 09:20am
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by CecilOne
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.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 10:51am
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Twin Cities MN
Posts: 8,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
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.
__________________
Tom
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 25, 2006, 04:30pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrowder
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"
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 26, 2006, 01:02pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Little Elm, TX (NW Dallas)
Posts: 4,047
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.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 26, 2006, 06:19pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: The Land Of The Free and The Home Of The Brave (MD/DE)
Posts: 6,425
Quote:
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?
__________________
Officiating takes more than OJT.
It's not our jobs to invent rulings to fit our personal idea of what should and should not be.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 26, 2006, 07:49pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 871
Quote:
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?
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Oct 26, 2006, 11:44pm
Official Forum Member
  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sierra Nevada Mtns
Posts: 3,220
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.
__________________
ASA, NCAA, NFHS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Hybrid Mode Hybrid Mode
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Look-Back Rule justmom Softball 2 Sun Apr 30, 2006 07:22am
Look Back Rule BuggBob Softball 7 Wed Apr 05, 2006 11:32am
Look Back Rule ??? 3afan Softball 2 Sun Apr 04, 2004 12:03am
FED - New look-back rule SamNVa Softball 6 Tue Mar 19, 2002 10:20pm
New look back rule (ASA) Dakota Softball 6 Fri Dec 07, 2001 12:00am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:55pm.

The Official Forum - Archive - Top


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1