The definition of leave is to go away from. Standing there lifting your foot and cleaning your cleats is not going away from the base. You want to pick nits that small I bet we could call out every runner that ever gets on base.

That's what I thought...until I looked it up!

The ASA & NFHS rules say the runner is out when she "fails to keep contact with" her base before the pitch is released. At least that's what their specific rule covering a runner leaving too soon once the pitcher is in the process of delivering a pitch.

Buried within the Look Back Rule is something about a runner not "leaving her base" once she stops on it. I suppose you could extend that requirement right up through the time the pitcher is actually throwing the next pitch.

If that's the case, then the rules say BOTH "keep contact with" AND "leave" her base. Way to be consistent and eliminate confusion...:cool:

Yes, but ""fails to keep contact with" her base before the pitch is released" is not in the LBR which this topic is about. Talk about nitpicking semantics. :rolleyes: :)

The other rule (8-6-21 in NFHS) implies a pitch is taking place, which makes enough difference to me.

FWIW, agree that the wording could be better, but there is a lot of that. :(

Appreciate the info...thanks.
KJ

I would not mingle the two rules. I'm not suggesting the rules requiring a runner to maintain contact with the base until the ball is pitched to be overlooked.

I would, however, only apply said rule when a pitch is immenent. If the pitcher is simply in the back of the circle catching her breath or away from the PP waiting for the catcher to put on her helmet or getting set, I would be more worried with the LBR than the contact with the base at the pitch.

You are assuming the rules are inconsistent, and I am working off the point that they are two different rules and meant to be just different.

//Self-serving commercial//

Of course, if we just kill the LBR, the issue here is dead and this thread is totally unnecessary. The game would move along at a consistent pace and the coaches would return to planning strategy based upon throwing, hitting and catching the ball, not whether or not they can trick the opponent into a cheap out or benefit from another's ever so slight error in judgment on how high they may lift their cleated sole to set their feet for the next play.

//Return to you regular programming//

Now that's a directive. No gray area there.

As a follow up.
 

I sent this to a member of the NUS:

Had a recent discussion among some umpires about the LBR. When the issue about whether or not to make the call if there was no definitive advantage led us to the argument about calling a runner out for "clearing the spikes, falling off the base, shifting weight, switching feet" because "technically" the runner has violated the LBR by losig contact with the base.

The LBR states a runner violates the rule by "leaving" the base. However, I think we have some umpires who take RS#34.I to heart where it is stated that if a runner is standing off the base without immediately advancing, they are in violation. Obviously, I believe the runner is still bound to be in contact with the base until the pitcher releases the ball, a little common sense would tell an umpire that would be when the pitcher is preparing to pitch, not when she is standing there just catching her breath or taking a second for her catcher to set.

Well, in my mind shifting one's weight, clearing the spikes, switching feet and, for that matter, even simply slipping off the edge of the base, is not leaving the base. Technicality? Semantics? Call it what you may, this may be an acceptable interpretation for not calling a runner out for simply losing contact with the base, but not moving from that space.

This is the response I received:

You are correct on all points. What you are describing, in the time frame you are describing it, is perfectly legal. Once on the bag, the changing of which foot is touching the bag when both feet leave the bag is legal.
We must go back to the 70's to derive the intent of the Rule. It's intent goes along with why it was named the "look back rule". Prior to it's implementation, the pitcher used to have to 'look the runner back to the bag', if the runner was off the bag. If the pitcher looked him back and then turned away, the runner would then stay off the bag and dance etc. It slowed the game considerably. Thus the current rule.

So any adjustments, well prior to the pitch, still are legal per the intent of the rule.

Rule 8, Section 7 2, does not help much when it says "Once the runner stops at a base for any reason, the runner will be declared out the leaving the base", this refers to a bona-fide attempt to leave as opposed to the changing of feet on the bag.

Good info. Mike.
So to attempt to recap the different interpretations by rule set regarding a runner momentarily losing contact with the base prior to the pitcher preparing to pitch and making no effort to advance, we have the following interpretations/approved rulings based on what's been posted:

1) NUS- NO VIOLATION. (See IrishMike's 3/28 post)
2) NCAA-VIOLATION: Runner is out. (See RadioBlue's 3/36 post)
(3) ASA- NO VIOLATION (See ronald's 3/35 post)

I do not believe we've yet determined the NHFS approved ruling (I could be wrong on this).
Other rule sets?

Let's be clear. We are talking about shifting feet, clearing spikes, etc., not taking trips to the coach's box, clearing your path or just generally wondering away from the base, etc.

Is "NO CATCH" an approved mechanic?
I thought that "CATCH" with a hammer would be the only thing to "call".
Along the lines of only calling "FOUL" and never calling "FAIR".


If it is an approved mechanic, is it a good one?
Because "NO CATCH" and "CATCH" are potentially confusing to all.

Yes...let's be crystal clear. That's all we're talking about...the type of movements by the base runner that you defined so well in your posts. I'm not looking to open any other cans of worms here...just trying to bring some closure to what I feel has been a very informative and helpful thread.

on a really close catch/no catch call, wouldn't a catch require more of a loud sell out? I had a strange play happen to me yesterday, runner goes around first, obstructed by F3, i signal obstruction, I protect her to 2B, she gets to 2B easily, I waive off the obstruction, ball's in F5's hands and I'm about to head to my next position for the next play. For some odd reason, the coach has his runner run from 2B to 3B thinking I was protecting her to 3B and it was a dead ball. Runner runs smack into the 3B who just happened to have the ball in her glove, basically the runner tagged herself out. I called the runner out, her coach threw a fit. He asked me how his runner could be out if it was a dead ball and I asked him: "Did I call time?" I told him I only protected his runner to 2B and anything beyond that was on her. Furthermore, since I didn't call time, as there was no need to, the runner running into the 3B's tag was still a live ball and on him. He realized he screwed up badly and didn't argue with me the rest of the game.

Just making sure, a lot of people read this stuff.