Originally Posted by David Emerling

Perhaps I misread what you wrote. But you seemed to suggest that the BR would be in violation of the LBR simply because the ball was returned promptly to the pitcher within the circle - with no play made on the BR. The BR's advance to 2nd, according to what you wrote, would be a violation.

That is what I disagree with.

The LBR rule does begin when the BR reaches 1st, however, if the BR never stops her forward progress; she is not in violation whether the ball is in the circle or not.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Originally Posted by JefferMC

Okay, I hate to do this (especially without having read my rulebooks, which are 10 miles away, but...)

Recently, I saw a player called out for this in a game (under NFHS rules):

R1 on 3rd, took normal lead with the pitch. BR took ball four, and ran towards first. The catcher returned the ball to the pitcher and R1 returns to 3rd. The runner continued through 1st towards second, saw that the pitcher had the ball stoped and immediately returned to first.

The BU said she should not have left 1st while the pitcher had the ball. With this intepretation, we don't need to worry about what R1 does at 3rd, because BR is out at first...

Originally Posted by David Emerling

I disagree with this.

The defense cannot force the BR to remain at first by simply returning the ball to the circle. That would only be true if the BR advanced to first and stopped.

However, as is usually the case with this offensive tactic, the BR never stops. She trots to first and then, after touching the bag, she accelerates to 2nd in the hope to get a reaction from the pitcher - hoping the runner on 3rd may get an opportunity to score.

Since the BR never stopped she is under no obligation to stop. This would not be a "Look Back Rule" violation.

But now, as I have learned, since the runner at 3rd did stop, she is subject to a "Look Back Rule" violation if she does not immediately return to 3rd or advance towards home.

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

One thing was not clear in the OP and probably HTBT.

Basically, the pitcher and runner at 3rd have a stare down, but neither makes a move.

If the pitcher was judged to be making a play on R1, then the LBR is off. It is my interp that if the pitcher makes any gesture that could cause the runner to think that the pitcher was making a play, there is no LBR.

In the OP, if F1 was "aggressively" in a stare down with R1, then play on. But if she was not in a "threating" posture, then we have LBR violated.

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

One thing was not clear in the OP and probably HTBT.

Basically, the pitcher and runner at 3rd have a stare down, but neither makes a move.

If the pitcher was judged to be making a play on R1, then the LBR is off. It is my interp that if the pitcher makes any gesture that could cause the runner to think that the pitcher was making a play, there is no LBR.

In the OP, if F1 was "aggressively" in a stare down with R1, then play on. But if she was not in a "threating" posture, then we have LBR violated.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Can someone please describe or define an "aggressive" stare?

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Can someone please describe or define an "aggressive" stare?

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

You would know one if you saw it.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And still would not even consider any "eye movement" or lack of it as a play. And no, in this case, HTBT doesn't apply, it just isn't an act by the defense that is an attempt to retire a runner.

There is a proposed addition to Rule 1 defining a play. It presently reads :"An attempt by a defensive player on a batted or thrown ball to retire a runner or a batter-runn. A pitch is not a play except as it relates to an appeal play."

Such a change will just cause more consternation on this issue and I intend to request the sponsor to amend the wording. Don't know if he will, but it will not hurt to ask.