I know it's been covered before, but I can't find the old thread
 

NSA Rules

R1 on 3rd, no outs.

Ball 4. Catcher returns ball to pitcher in circle. BR runs to 1st, rounds it, goes three steps off (toward 2nd), then stops, and goes back to 1st.

Defense goes nuts and says the pitcher got back on the rubber before BR reached 1st.

Offense makes two claims
1) Pitcher held the ball up to "threaten" a throw
2) BR is entitled to round, stop, and return to 1st as long as it's an immediate stop & return.

Ball WAS in the circle in pitcher's possession when BR touched 1st. I do not know if pitcher was on the rubber.

This is U12, not that it makes a difference but that's why this play is still being used.

I *THINK* under both offensive claims, BR becomes R2 on 1st. Am I correct? Does it make a difference if the pitcher is on the rubber before BR reaches 1st?

Thanks

I do know (or think I do) if offense claim #1 is true, LBR is off.

BR rounds first then stops and goes back - One stop is allowed and, if the pitcher has the ball in the circle and is not making a play, the BR must then commit to either go back to first or continue on to second. This is not an infraction.

Defense goes nuts... - They often do.

Offense makes two claims... - They shouldn't have been in the discussion. It sounds like better game control could have been in place.

I do not know if pitcher was on the rubber. - It only matters if the pitcher is in the circle. The pitching plate has nothing to do with the lookback rule. (Baseball has rubbers; softball has pitching plates.)

Thanks. That's what I thought.

Defense complained. BU & PU got together, then called BR out.

:eek: :eek: :o

Speaking ASA, on a walk, if the runner rounds first, commits to second (Umpires Judgement on the 3 steps) and stops, while the pitcher has control of the ball in the circle, its a LBR violation and an out. Although, when the pitcher makes a fake throw, it is considered making a play, no out.

Disagree, Trooper. Runner can round, stop once, then go to 2B or return to 1B. In no case does "committing to second" come into play until after the legal stop.

ASA Rule 8, Sec 7, T3 (Look Back Rule) allows the runner to stop in every case? The umpire manual makes reference to and uses the term non-stop within this rule. Our umpire crew and UIC all call it the way I described in the OP. The way you explained it leads me to believe that the runner could run right up to second, stop and then commit to a base (1st or 2nd) without it being a LBR violation?

8.7.T.3.a: The batter-runner who rounds first base toward second base may stop once, but then must immediately non-stop return to first base or attempt to adance non-stop to second base.

To me, the rule is quite clear and always has been. The runner is allowed one stop and then must proceed non-stop to one base or the other.

:confused::confused::confused:

Yeah, the "three steps" thing had be confused too. I thought that he was implying a runner had to take a certain number of steps toward second to qualify as "an attempt".

But I went back and read the first post and it has a reference to the runner having taken "three steps" past first base.

Are you confusing rounding with overrunning?

Correct.

This is ehe example I often use to illustrate the point of allowing the stop.

We have nothing so far... totally legal.

Who is "defense"? Players/parents? Ignore. Coach? BRIEF statement that what runner did was legal ... did he ask for time before he came out? Did we grant it?

Why is the offense "claiming" anything? Siddown, coach, I got it.

Umpire judgement as to whether it was enough to be "a play", but probably a play. LBR off. Offense reminding of this is irrelevant.
Thanks, coach, I know that.

OK... but irrelevant. Doesn't matter. Never matters. Don't care.

Runner safe, move on.

For what???? I protest.

Oh no. Find us the rule that says "commits to second" after "three steps". Runner is allowed to continue running in one direction, however far she wants ... stop once, briefly ... decide which way to go, and THEN head to a base (to which she is NOW committed). BR can jog all the way to 1 step short of 2nd base, stop, and return legally.

OK, more details...

As far as player actions, they are as described above. In the interest of full disclosure:
1) My DD was the batter
2) I had helped coach her team for the last 4 weeks, but was "outside the fence" as a spectator b/c I had to look after my other two kids.

Regarding what happened after BR returned to 1st...

D coach stepped away from dugout toward field, I do not remember if he called time or not, but willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He said something to the effect of "She's not allowed to stop and return to 1st".

From outside the fence, I said "She's entitled to one stop as long as she immediately makes a decision." (yes, I should have kept my mouth shut, mea culpa)
D coach looks at me and says "Let us handle it." He might have said something here to the officials, but I don't remember/didn't hear.

PU goes out and meets w/BU out of earshot of anyone. They break up and PU calls BR out.
O coach calls "time" and tries to say pitcher raised her hand as if to make a throw.
PU & BU go back into position, "play ball".
O coach did NOT protest any more.

Obviously I am biased toward my DD & her team. But, I tried to present the case here in an unbiased way. I tried to give as many facts as I can. I will admit my knowledge of the rules isn't the best and didn't know if there are any "extenuating" circumstances that should change the outcome.

From what I can tell here, the umpires made the wrong call. Can O coach "protest" and ask for a ruling from the UIC? Obviously, this shouldn't be a judgement call, right?

Did the coach call time and just start talking, or did he request time, have it granted, and walk out to talk with PU? You're going to get further if you do the 2nd. At this point, OC needs to determine what the PU saw and what they are ruling on. Some of this IS judgement. Which is why OC needs to know what the umpire "saw". If, in his judgement, the movement (if they saw it) by the pitcher was not a play ... then it wasn't. If, in his judgement, BR is out for stopping too long after rounding, then she stopped too long. Neither of these are protestable.

If, however, they tell your coach something contrary to the rules (like - "she can't round first on a walk without going all the way to 2nd"), THEN the coach should definitely protest, and USE THAT WORD.

Honestly, don't know. I think he just started walking out.

That makes sense. Is there a proper way to ask what the umpire saw? "Hey Blue, why is she out?" seems simple and too the point, but also sounds argumentative.

Is there any harm in protesting? Not to extremes, but let's say just once a tournament (like on this play). If a coach protests (I assume that's when UIC is called in) and the umpire's call is upheld, is there any downside? Do umpires "hold it against" a coach for getting the UIC's opinion?

BTW, thanks.

That totally explains the PU and BU taking their positions and saying play ball.

Not in this case. There is obviously confusion, as she was not ruled out initially. "Why is she out" is a completely valid question.

No, not at all. Most leagues have a protest fee that you get back if you're right. Tourney's? Heck no. You should absolutely protest when a rule is screwed up by an umpire. I know I don't hold it against anyone. Now ... protesting often when you're WRONG can have some repercussions, so you better know you're right.

I understand the protest fees, but in this case, if I were coaching, I THINK I know what the rule is, but wasn't sure at the time. Unfortunately this is one of those situations where the BR would be the tieing run in the top of the last inning and there was only 1 out. TOTALLY changed the scope of the game.

I never said three steps was a rule or commitment to go second base, review the above post for the origin of the three steps. I said, if in the umpire’s judgment, three steps could be a commitment to second. Just as a runner who rounds first and is tagged, the umpire has to make a call based on their judgment, taking into consideration if an attempt toward second was made.

On the LBR, I am looking at the whole rule under 8.7.T.3.a.b.c.d.e. Neither d nor e requires a stop for the rule to come into effect.

Under a. the rule allows the runner to stop once and immediately make a determination of whether they are going to advance or return to the base.

Where I question the rule is c, d and e all use the term committed to a base. Under a, the author did not use the term committed to second base, although it is implied that a commitment can be made prior to a stop, as in d and e. with all that being said, I believe that it could be cleaned up and explained better. It is apparent that the rule is not called the same at every ball park and I believe that most of us want to make the right calls, although because of the rule there is some confusion among umpires.

No, it can't. That is nowhere in the LBR. The umpire does not get to arbitrarily "judge" when the runner committed. Apples and pomegranates.

The umpire does not get to arbitrarily decide which section of the LBR to apply. This is from the OP:Now, from that, which part of the LBR applies? (Hint: it ain't 8-7-T-3-b, c, d, or e.)

Okay, let's get rid of the three steps as it is irrelevant to the rule.

NONE of them require a stop for the LBR to be in effect.

All these rules allow a stop. When it involves a BR overunning 1st base, it simply means that the change in direction is the same as a stop for the purpose of the LBR.

I am going to concede to the majority here and change the way I call it, thanks for the input.

Not that it matters, but the way you were calling it (with the "allowed two or three steps" thing) was the way I was taught and the way that I believe all organizations taught it several years back.

I believe it was somewhere around five years ago when the rule was changed to "one stop", which of course means as noted in an earlier post that the runner could run all the way, right up to 2B, before deciding to stop and go back. Though, realistically, that never happens.

As long as you graciously accept the outcome of the protest shouldn't be anything but good come from it. Most umps I've worked with love protests because the protester learns it pays to study a little more.

Don't know what rule set to which you are referring, but for ASA I'm pretty sure it has always been an allowance of one stop for the runner once the LBR was effective and I can document that back to, at least, 1999. The obvious exception is when the stop is while in contact with the base while the LBR is in effect. In 2000 the rule was adjusted to specifically cover the different scenarios of subsequent actions of the batter-runner after over running 1B.

And in my 22 years of ASA ball, I do not recall ever being trained or told of any distance, time or speed to which the runner must limit themselves to avoid being ruled out for an LBR violation.

I guess we also had to take into consideration that a decade or so ago, we did not have the large scale ability for ASA staff to communicate with the masses of mechanics and rule changes and clarifications. Back then it was the National UIC Clinics, but not all UICs would attend or go home and pass on the information to everyone. This probably left some areas to do the best they can in making their own decisions on rules and mechanics.

We still see that at some level when you hear about umpires still applying the old rules "about to receive", unreported sub penalties, re-entry allowances, etc. in their games and this is with the internet and the ability to get changes across in a heartbeat. Could be it is people not agreeing and making up their own rules, or just not paying attention to what they are told. It is not unusual to have people come up after a clinic to clarify an issue you just addressed and complete distort not only what was stated, but also displayed on a screen behind the clinician.

SC Ump, I was taught if a runner rounded first on a walk, they were committed to second; therefore stopping or would result in an out. I learned that from a senior umpire (16yrs Experience in ASA and NFHS) and it was confirmed by several other umpires. I believe the reason it is being taught, is the one IRISH mentioned in the last post. This forum has been a good resource for me the last couple of years and I have been able to clear up a few issues by interacting with the guys who contribute to the forum. Thanks again.

I believe I was taught much the same in my first year in blue. At some point, I gained enough confidence (and book knowledge) to question some of the things I was being told - and quickly realized that sometimes 20 years of experience is really 1 year of experience repeated 20 times. Within 3 years in that area, all the old guard was gone, I was UIC, and everyone had to actually attend the clinics and pass the test.

Much of the old guard became coaches ... you know, the guy who gets ejected after an argument that started with, "You know, I used to be an umpire..."

Fed rule on LBR. She can only commit to 2nd if she over runs and steps toward 2nd. She is then committed to 2nd. She can round,whether the balls in the circle or not, and crawl to 2nd until she stops. She must then decide immediately which way to go. I saw this play in high school regional game where girl rounds first and very slowly, without stopping creep towards 2nd. Runner was on 3rd and she was trying to make pitcher make play on her to attempt to get run home. Legal and smart play. AS long as she doesn't stop which makes her make an immediate decision which way to go.

Hmmm....let's apply some language skills here. Migo=Me. Does that mean that P=Piano, possibly??? Are we being sent a cryptic message here?

Who is that?
http://music-onebox.googleuserconten...2c60c9d1b5.jpg