Lookback

[SRW]

ASA Ruleset. Or NFHS. You pick.

R1 on 1B. Outs don't matter. B2 takes ball 4, and begins to trot on down to 1B. F2 returns the ball to F1, who maintains control in the circle. R1 hesitates going to 2B as she's talking with the first base-coach for a second, then starts slowly on her way to 2B. B2 now reaches 1B while R1 is about 3/4 to 2B. R1 is holding her batting gloves in each hand (not wearing them), and drops one of them before reaching 2B. Without thinking, she steps back to pick it up, then continues to 2B.

You calling the out?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

ASA Ruleset. Or NFHS. You pick.

R1 on 1B. Outs don't matter. B2 takes ball 4, and begins to trot on down to 1B. F2 returns the ball to F1, who maintains control in the circle. R1 hesitates going to 2B as she's talking with the first base-coach for a second, then starts slowly on her way to 2B. B2 now reaches 1B while R1 is about 3/4 to 2B. R1 is holding her batting gloves in each hand (not wearing them), and drops one of them before reaching 2B. Without thinking, she steps back to pick it up, then continues to 2B.

You calling the out?

Speaking ASA

There is no out to call. R1 is entitled to advance to 2B without liability to be put out in accordance with 8.5.A. There is no time limit on how quickly that runner must advance to the base forced.

[greymule]

ASA. I had a situation where the runner on 1B, while advancing to 2B after a walk to the batter, stopped twice in an attempt to decoy the pitcher into making a throw. The defensive coach, not without a little amusement in his voice, claimed that the runner had violated the LBR. I responded that the runner had the right to advance without liability to be put out.

But I wondered about it later, because even a runner not liable to be put out can still be declared out, for example, for passing a runner or committing interference. So apparently violating the LBR is not one of those cases, though I don't see where the rule book says so specifically. Further, ASA does not draw a sharp distinction between being put out and being declared out.

In the original post, the runner's stopping to talk to the coach would be irrelevant, since the batter had not yet reached 1B. Reversing direction twice in picking up the glove would be the violation.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

There is no out to call. R1 is entitled to advance to 2B without liability to be put out in accordance with 8.5.A. There is no time limit on how quickly that runner must advance to the base forced.

This is true for NFHS as well.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Speaking ASA

There is no out to call. R1 is entitled to advance to 2B without liability to be put out in accordance with 8.5.A. There is no time limit on how quickly that runner must advance to the base forced.

Damnit, Mike, you're not supposed to be the first one to answer! I wanted to get people discussing this one, not killing the thread with the answer as the second post! :P

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SRW

Damnit, Mike, you're not supposed to be the first one to answer! I wanted to get people discussing this one, not killing the thread with the answer as the second post! :P

We can still talk about it, since greymule raises some good points.

Clearly, the runner who is advancing without liability to be put out can, under some circumstances, be declared out for committing a violation. The ball is live, and it would not be too difficult to invent a situation where R1 could commit interference.

Why is a LBR violation exempt?

[SRW]

Originally Posted by Dakota

We can still talk about it, since greymule raises some good points.

Oh I agree...

Originally Posted by Dakota

Clearly, the runner who is advancing without liability to be put out can, under some circumstances, be declared out for committing a violation. The ball is live, and it would not be too difficult to invent a situation where R1 could commit interference.

Ok, I'll bite... on the BR being awarded a base on balls, how could R1 commit interference?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by SRW

Ok, I'll bite... on the BR being awarded a base on balls, how could R1 commit interference?

Let's say the team on offense has been aggressive base runners the whole game; they have managed to stretch a walk earlier into a "double", executed a delayed steal, and in general are risk-takers on the bases. Catcher throws hard back to F1 after the walk to hold the runners, but the throw is a bit high and the ball is tipped off F1's glove back toward 2B. R1 sees this and takes off. F4 backs up the throw, gloves the ball, and R1 collides with her. Just to be clear, F4 has possession of the ball several steps before the collision and the collision happens between 1B and 2B. F4 goes down, but R1 stays on her feet and advances to 3B, beating the throw from the recovered F4.

Ruling?

[greymule]

Let's say the team on offense has been aggressive base runners the whole game; they have managed to stretch a walk earlier into a "double", executed a delayed steal, and in general are risk-takers on the bases. Catcher throws hard back to F1 after the walk to hold the runners, but the throw is a bit high and the ball is tipped off F1's glove back toward 2B. R1 sees this and takes off. F4 backs up the throw, gloves the ball, and R1 collides with her. Just to be clear, F4 has possession of the ball several steps before the collision and the collision happens between 1B and 2B. F4 goes down, but R1 stays on her feet and advances to 3B, beating the throw from the recovered F4.

That one has to be interference, and the runner should be declared out even though the defense cannot put her out.

[3afan]

how is that interference? the fielder is not fielding a live batted ball ... doesnt sound like int --- maybe nothing, especially on a walk when R1 gets 2B w/o liability of being put out. now maybe if the ruling the contact was malicious.

please elaborate why this is int?

[greymule]

how is that interference? the fielder is not fielding a live batted ball ... doesnt sound like int --- maybe nothing, especially on a walk when R1 gets 2B w/o liability of being put out. now maybe if the ruling the contact was malicious.

ASA does not recognize malicious contact. But in any case, 8-7-J, the runner is out when the runner interferes with the fielder attempting to throw the ball. I interpret this as avoidable interference with a fielder legitimately trying to make a play. With no runner on 3B, if the ball got away and the runner from 1B ran into F4 going to pick up the ball, there's no play possible, so INT is not an issue. And even if there was a runner on 3B, and that runner was simply standing on the bag, I would call time and not INT.

But for argument's sake, let's assume the extreme example—that the runner from 1B grabs F4's arm to prevent a play on the runner from 3B going home. The runner is declared out even though she could not be put out.

It in interesting that OBR draws a significant distinction between declared versus put out. If I am not mistaken, declared out is always a time play. So in the case of bases loaded, 2 out, ball 4 on the batter, who sprints down to 1B, makes a turn, and passes the runner on 1B, the BR's being declared out negates the run from 3B if the out came before the runner crossed the plate. But if the BR rounded 1B and was simply tagged out, it would be 3 outs, but the runner from 3B would be allowed to score "on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base."

From 8-7-T, the LBR: The "Look Back" rule will be in effect for all runners when the ball is live, the BR has touched 1B or has been declared out [!], and the pitcher has possession and control of the ball within the pitcher's circle.

I see nothing under the LBR or in the RS that says a runner who is advancing without liability to be put out cannot violate the LBR. I'm not claiming that such a runner can violate the LBR, but I have to admit that I'm not sure now.

Abel on 3B, Baker on 1B, 1 out. Charles takes ball 4 and advances to 1B. With the ball in the circle, Baker walks almost to 2B and then turns around and walks back to 1B, and let's assume dances around, changing direction several times while Abel stands on 3B and Baker stands on 1B. Now what?

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by 3afan

how is that interference? the fielder is not fielding a live batted ball ...

True, but the fielder has possession of the ball when a runner collides with her. It would be interference if there was a play. I suppose you could make the argument there was no play, since ASA is VERY specific about that:

PLAY: An attempt by a defensive player to retire a batter-runner or runner....

So, by that, holding the runner is not a play.

Then, put R1 on 3rd and it is R2 that collides with F4 as R1 is advancing home.

You still have a runner who is advancing without liability to be put out being declared out, which was the point of the whole interference side track.

So, back to the LBR. By rule, the LBR is in effect in the OP. Would I call R1 out for stepping back to pick up a glove? Heck no. But what about the situation where R1 is dancing around attempting to entice F1 to throw the ball. Sure, throwing the ball when the runner cannot be tagged out would be a DMP, but that is beside the point.

Is the LBR in effect, and is R1 in jeopardy of being DECLARED out if she violates it?

I'm like greymule... I'm not saying she IS, but it is an interesting question.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Let's say the team on offense has been aggressive base runners the whole game; they have managed to stretch a walk earlier into a "double", executed a delayed steal, and in general are risk-takers on the bases. Catcher throws hard back to F1 after the walk to hold the runners, but the throw is a bit high and the ball is tipped off F1's glove back toward 2B. R1 sees this and takes off. F4 backs up the throw, gloves the ball, and R1 collides with her. Just to be clear, F4 has possession of the ball several steps before the collision and the collision happens between 1B and 2B. F4 goes down, but R1 stays on her feet and advances to 3B, beating the throw from the recovered F4.

Ruling?

Sea....er, SRW, can I answer now?

IN MY JUDGMENT, this is not INT if the runner was simply running to the base and there was no act to collide with or interfere with F4. LBR still has no standing here until R1 touches 2B. Do not take that as a comparison to the part of the rule which requires the BR to touch 1B to activate the rule.

[SRW]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Sea....er, SRW, can I answer now?

Haha! Ok, yes you may!

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

... LBR still has no standing here until R1 touches 2B. Do not take that as a comparison to the part of the rule which requires the BR to touch 1B to activate the rule.

You lost me with that one... Are you saying that, in effect, if BR is now on 1B, that if R1 hasn't yet reached 2B that she can pretty much go wherever she wants, stopping, starting, returning, dropping her glove, whatever?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by SRW

You lost me with that one... Are you saying that, in effect, if BR is now on 1B, that if R1 hasn't yet reached 2B that she can pretty much go wherever she wants, stopping, starting, returning, dropping her glove, whatever?

Walk, so to speak, through it.

R1 is forced to vacate 1B when the batter becomes a batter-runner. 8.5.A states the runner is entitled to advance without liability to be put out. The effect reads: The ball remains live unless it is blocked. Any runner affected is entitled to one base and may advance farther with liability to be put out if the ball is live. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a time limit or required speed ever impossed on any R/BR in completing their running assignments.

Now comes the contradiction. 8.7.T applies to all runners once the BR reaches 1B and the ball is in possession of the pitcher completely inside the circle. There is no exception noted concerning a runner without liability to be retired.

The Rules Supplement refers to a BOB, but only to the BR. Then again, it also states that it is the runner's responsibility to adhere to the LBR and proceed directly to the base to which they were heading when the pitcher receives the ball in the circle.

So, you now need to make a decision. Which came first, the effect of the awarded base on balls or the LBR? Regardless of which way you rule, there is verbiage within the rules to support your decision.

Personally, I would probably give a slight benefit of doubt to the runner especially if she is doing something as simple has just picking up a dropped glove or slowing down/hesitating to hear her coaches instructions. OTOH, taunting the pitcher may bring a completely different reaction and ruling. As stated, verbiage to support eithing call.

Then again, the SP side of me may come out and say, "Damn, that plate is awfully dirty. I better clean it off before anything else can happen" and then have a simple me-to-you conversation with the coach between innings.