ASA Lookback Rule
 

Need some opinions on this play: (ASA 18U tournament in St. Louis)

Runner on 3rd. Batter receives a walk. The ball is promptly returned to the pitcher within the circle. Runner on 3rd is off the bag about 10-feet poised to go home, watching the pitcher closely. BR never stops at 1st and continues on to 2nd, meanwhile, the pitcher looks on from within the circle. The pitcher is concerned the runner from 3rd will attempt to score if she makes a play on the BR. Basically, the pitcher and runner at 3rd have a stare down, but neither makes a move. The BR arrives at 2nd base, standing up, with no play having been made on her. The other runner simply returns to 3rd.

The defense wants the runner on 3rd called out on the "Lookback Rule", claiming she was off the base while the pitcher was in the circle with the ball.

The defense claims that a play was in progress since the BR never STOPPED at first, therefore, ALL runners were free to do whatever they wanted. They claimed that the BR, by continuing to run, caused the play to remain live and that the defense couldn't "freeze" other runners while another runner was free to advance.

Basically the argument came down to this:

1. The defense acknowledged that the BR was free to advance despite the ball being in the circle, however, the other runner had to either advance or return to third or be subject to being called out for a "Lookback Rule" violation.

2. The offense claimed that if one runner was free to advance then all runners were free to advance. Had the BR stopped at 1st and the other runner remained off the bag, then she could have been called out for a violation. But the BR never stopped! That kept the play live. The pitcher cannot use the "Lookback Rule" to freeze runners as long as one runner is legally continuing her advance. Theoretically, the BR could have run completely around the bases and scored while the pitcher looked on with the ball in the circle. If that is so then, obviously, the runner at 3rd would be free to advance as well.

The umpires consulted with one another and decided not to call out any runners and claimed there was no "Lookback Rule" violation.

The defense protested the ruling claiming that the rule had been misapplied.

The defense ultimately won the game and withdrew the protest.

It would have been interesting had it been resolved.

Any opinions?

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

I have a LBR out. Since the ball was in the circle and the batter/runner made it to first and the pitcher made no motion while in the circle, the runner at third has to make a decision whether to go back to third or advance home. I have called this out numerous times over the years. This is similiar to if the girl would have stayed on third while this happened and then came off the base. When I work with someone that I regularly work with, the BU takes the batter/runner into second while the PU watches what the runner at third is doing. There is timing involved as to when and if the pitcher makes a motion. If the runner from third is just standing there watching the play in hopes that the pitcher makes a motion toward the batter/runner, I have an out. Dave

David said - "Basically the argument came down to this:

1. The defense acknowledged that the BR was free to advance despite the ball being in the circle, however, the other runner had to either advance or return to third or be subject to being called out for a "Lookback Rule" violation.

2. The offense claimed that if one runner was free to advance then all runners were free to advance. Had the BR stopped at 1st and the other runner remained off the bag, then she could have been called out for a violation. But the BR never stopped! That kept the play live. The pitcher cannot use the "Lookback Rule" to freeze runners as long as one runner is legally continuing her advance. Theoretically, the BR could have run completely around the bases and scored while the pitcher looked on with the ball in the circle. If that is so then, obviously, the runner at 3rd would be free to advance as well.

The umpires consulted with one another and decided not to call out any runners and claimed there was no "Lookback Rule" violation.

The defense protested the ruling claiming that the rule had been misapplied.

The defense ultimately won the game and withdrew the protest."

The defense' position is correct. Every individual runner is subject to it - as individuals, not as a team. Your play sure sounds like a mia-applied rule. If explained to those hearing the protest, it would have been upheld.


The offense knows they got away with one. They sold some bad dope with their argument that The pitcher cannot use the "Lookback Rule" to freeze runners as long as one runner is legally continuing her advance. The pitcher does not freeze the runner(s), the rule deals with them. It sounds like those umps bought the bad dope - and smoked it.

Yup, the protest in this situation would have certainly been upheld. Once the BR touched first, providing no play was being made by the pitcher(we all know the definition, a fake throw...etc.), then the runner had third had to either advance to home or retreat to third. Just standing there, off the bag, constitutes a violation of the LBR.

Thanks for all the good answers.

I suspected that this was the correct answer but wasn't certain.

This has spawned a new question, however:

What would constitute the pitcher making a play on BR?

1. The pitcher moves toward the advancing BR, yet remains within the circle. She doesn't make any throw or fakes.

2. The pitcher turns toward the advancing BR, raises her arm with the ball in hand as if to make a throw, but makes no throw nor fake.

Thanks!

David Emerling
Memphis, TN

This would not be considered making a play on a runner. Simply walking within the circle in the direction of any runner does not constitute making a play.

This would be considered making a play on a runner. Once the arm goes up, that's all it takes.

[QUOTE]

Did the BR react to either of these?

"What is a play by the pitcher" is umpire judgment. According to ASA, a fake throw is a play; also any action by the pitcher that, in the umpire's judgment, causes a reaction by a runner is a play.

A couple of notes not yet mentioned.

First - proper ruling on this would (even in retrospect) put the BR back on first! Why? Proper timing of the LBR would be "immediately" after BR reached first base. Immediately is generally about 1 or 1 1/2 seconds. No BR could get from 1st to 2nd in the amount of time generally allowed for "immediately". LBR is an immediate dead ball, and BR would have been short of 2nd at that time. Send her back.

Second - the defense is not "enacting" the rule or "freezing" the runner by it's actions. The offense's contention is not only incorrect, but the logic leading up to it is inaccurate. It the actions of the OFFENSE (coupled with INaction on the defense's part) that enact the LBR on each individual runner. The action that precipitated the LBR was the runner's failure to move in one direction or the other. If the original PU would have been thinking of LBR in these terms, I suspect he'd have made the right call on the spot.

As Tom has already noted, these are judgement call situations. In the first sitch, if I felt the "move" was an attempt to indicate a pending possible play, or to get a reaction out of the runner, then it is entirely possible that I would release the runner from any LBR infractions.

In your second situation, I would most likely not have the LBR in effect.

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

Correct. It seems there are some umpires who need to read my signature tag line.

Also, let's remember that the LBR is really a RCR (runner control rule) and is not intended to be a "gotcha" (usual caveat); and no good umpire would call a violation unless it violates the intent and spirit. Emerling's example of the pitcher walking toward the runner could very well be a play or fake play, so only a "gotcha" umpire would call the a LBR violation. Unless of course, the runner had violated the rule before the pitcher moved or after she stopped.

You disagree with what?
That the LBR goes into effect on R1 as soon as the BR touches 1B?
That if R1 does not, then, "immediately" start moving that she has violated the LBR?
That the LBR is an immediate dead ball?
That the BR should be returned to 1B after the LBR call on R1?

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

I didn't write it - mcrowder did; and, as I read his post, he was referring to a LBR violation on R1 for standing off 3B while the BR advances to 2B.

If he was talking about the BR being in violation, she would be out, not returned. What he was saying was the LBR call on R1 kills the ball, and so the BR cannot continue to 2B.

I am just a dad and volunteer coach with no softball background but I have copies of the ASA rules and try to read them often.

[sarcasm]But I don't recall reading anything about "the batter runner keeps the play live" or "the pitcher freezes the runners." I just read POE 32 again and didn't see it. Did I miss a page?[/sarcasm]

You missed what he wrote. Once you enforce the LBR and ring R1 up, the ball is dead and BR can no longer advance. Since BR could not reach 2B before R1 is called out, he has to return to 1B

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...

From what I am reading here, BU was wrong. The BR can round first, stop, then decide whether to return to first (which she did), or continue on to second, with no penalty, so long as she does one or the other "immediately" in the judgement of the umpire.

Yes, what you missed is that the moment R1 is called out on the LBR (even in retrospect on protest), it's an immediate dead ball. BR is not returning to first because of the LBR, she's returning to first because she was not on 2nd by the time the ball should have become dead by rule.

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.

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.

Agree with two posts above. HTBT.

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!"

Here ya go...

http://www.bentoandstarchky.com/purpose/home6.gif

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.

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.

Yes dear. . .

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

The words "continued through 1st", if they imply non-stop, mean the ump blew it.

It's not possible to have a play on a HBP since the ball is dead.

I've already received a response back from a DDU that they are satisfied with the wording of the definition I previously posted and that will most likely be in the rule book next year unless it is challenged in committee or on the floor next week.

It'll give yall something to do in 08 when you will need to define attempt. ;)

Of course not, just a generic reference to this topic's concern with the pitcher's actions with a live ball, not resulting from the ball being batted or thrown.