look back rule

[gfleischer82]

Look Back rule.

Batter get base on ball. Runner runs around 1st toward 2nd. A ball is returned to pitcher. A runner kinda slow down then proceed to 2nd. Is runner out due to look back rule violation? Since the runner is commited to 2nd base?

[Steve M]

Did this runner stop - and stay stopped? Did this runner change direction twice? What part of the lookback rule do you think the runner violated? I do not see a violation in the description you gave.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by gfleischer82

Look Back rule.

Batter get base on ball. Runner runs around 1st toward 2nd. A ball is returned to pitcher. A runner kinda slow down then proceed to 2nd. Is runner out due to look back rule violation? Since the runner is commited to 2nd base?

There is no such thing as a runner being committed to a base. Not even sure what you'd be referring to there.

Once the pitcher has the ball in the circle AND the BR has reached first base, LBR is on. AFTER this moment, the runner is allowed to stop exactly once, decide which way to go, and then must continue in that direction, assuming no play is made. Let's assume that BR has reached first in your scenario. The runner slowing - legal. Did she stop? If so, legal for now. Did she stop for longer than a couple of seconds? If so - there's your LBR violation. If not, did she then, after the stop, proceed in only one direction (either toward 1st or 2nd). If so, legal. If she stopped a 2nd time, or reversed direction after the first stop, then you have a LBR violation.

Your sitch sounds completely legal, even if BR had reached first.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by gfleischer82

Look Back rule.

Batter get base on ball. Runner runs around 1st toward 2nd. A ball is returned to pitcher. A runner kinda slow down then proceed to 2nd. Is runner out due to look back rule violation? Since the runner is commited to 2nd base?

To start, I hope the defense appeal the BR failing to touch 1B

The runner is not committed to 2B, did not stop, did not reverse direction.

There is no call to be made here.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

There is no such thing as a runner being committed to a base. Not even sure what you'd be referring to there.

NFHS 8-7-4

[gfleischer82]

ASA:

a runner did not stopped or changed directions.

just like running fast slow down then run fast (changing speed) toward 2nd base after base on ball

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

To start, I hope the defense appeal the BR failing to touch 1B

The runner is not committed to 2B, did not stop, did not reverse direction.

There is no call to be made here.

I believe the poster did not mean missed 1B, though it's worded awkwardly.

Bob

[bluezebra]

Originally Posted by gfleischer82

Look Back rule.

Batter get base on ball. Runner runs around 1st toward 2nd. A ball is returned to pitcher. A runner kinda slow down then proceed to 2nd. Is runner out due to look back rule violation? Since the runner is commited to 2nd base?

As others said, a runner is not "committed" to a base. Only managers and coaches should be "committed", but not to a base.

Since the runner did not stop, the "look-back" rule is not in effect. She/he could walk as slowly as she/he wants, as long as moving.

Bob

[wadeintothem]

What age group was this? 12U friendly rec?

Its such a common thing to do.

Lucky for yall she didnt run all the way home.

[gfleischer82]

14U friendly.

She did touched first base. Then to 2nd base.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by bluezebra

Only managers and coaches should be "committed", but not to a base.

I don't know about that. There are a few that I think should be committed to a base.......in Irag or Afghanistan.

Just kidding!

[mcrowder]

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.

[Dakota]

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.

[CecilOne]

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"

[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.