ASA Lookback Rule

[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.

[Dakota]

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.

These situations are always difficult to describe in writing, but you know a play when you see one, and you know a runner just baiting the pitcher when you see that, too.

[mcrowder]

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.

I'd be careful ruling a stare (even an aggressive one) as a play, especially since because of the name of this rule, coaches are out there teaching their pitchers that they have to LOOK at the offending runner. Yes, it's wrong, but they are out there. An aggressive step toward the runner? Sure, I could see that being called a play if the runner reacted to it. But absent movement (arm or legs) that might make a runner react, I can't see removing LBR restrictions solely based on a stare from the pitcher, even if it's an "aggressive" stare.

[tcannizzo]

Agree with two posts above. HTBT.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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

Regardless, "staring" cannot retire a runner, so there is no way I would even take that into consideration as a "play".

Sounds like a three-year old's complaint. "Blue, Blue, she stared at me! Tell her to stop staring!!! STOP IT! DON'T LOOK AT ME! Umpire, umpire, she's looking at me! STOP IT!"

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

Here ya go...

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

You would know one if you saw it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

You would know one if you saw it.

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.

[wadeintothem]

When "aggressive stare" starts being part of an LBR discussion, its time for us to get back on the field.

That pitcher can watch that runner all she wants... thats not a play. In fact, thats the essence of the rule, if the pitcher is looking them back, they gotta ___ or get off the pot or they are out.

[CecilOne]

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.

Especially when "batted or thrown ball" would not include a BB or HBP or ...