Look back rule clarification

[shipwreck]

Ok, I know this has been hashed out many times but I forget what the concensus was on this. NCAA rules, or probably most rulesets. Runner on first, 2-2 count on batter. Ball comes in for 3-2 count. Batter thinks it is ball 4 and starts to trot down to first. Runner on first then goes to second with the catcher throwing the ball back to the pitcher in the circle. Runners now standing on first and second. PU checks with me that it is 3-2 count and I verify it is. Batter goes back to home and girl on second takes 2 steps back toward first with ball controlled by the pitcher in the circle, not making a play on her. Is this in fact a look back violation? Dave

[RKBUmp]

If the pitcher is in control of the ball in the circle and a runner leaves a base, it is a look back violation, runner is out. In your play, the runner at 1st essentially stole 2nd base, and then left it voluntarily after the ball was in the circle.

[tcannizzo]

I dunno, could this not be considered a no violation, as officials are awarding, um un-awarding bases, which is only done while ball is dead?

[LIUmp]

I don't know if I would call the look back violation as it seems as if an umpire error (batter runner going to first, then calling her back because her turn at bat is not over) has put the offensive team in jeopardy.

However, if that lead runner is going back and is tagged out, then I would call her out. She stole second base and was never told to go back, so her going back is her error. But if she goes all the way back to first with no play, then I'd say dumb move runner AND dumb move fielders.

This could have been avoided by the plate umpire being aware of the count and being proactive.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

I don't know if I would call the look back violation as it seems as if an umpire error (batter runner going to first, then calling her back because her turn at bat is not over) has put the offensive team in jeopardy. .

Was it the umpire who sent the BR to first? Did the umpire announce 4 Balls?
Did the umpire send the runner back to first?

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

However, if that lead runner is going back and is tagged out, then I would call her out. She stole second base and was never told to go back, so her going back is her error. But if she goes all the way back to first with no play, then I'd say dumb move runner AND dumb move fielders.

Seems a contradiction to me... if you are absolving the runnner due to what you perceive as "umpire error" in the first situation, why would you leave her in jeapordy here? I don't see how you pick one and not the other.

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

This could have been avoided by the plate umpire being aware of the count and being proactive.

I don't disagree with that - As PU, I would clearly announce the 3-2 count when it became clear BR was heading to first.

[LIUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Was it the umpire who sent the BR to first? Did the umpire announce 4 Balls?
Did the umpire send the runner back to first?



Seems a contradiction to me... if you are absolving the runnner due to what you perceive as "umpire error" in the first situation, why would you leave her in jeapordy here? I don't see how you pick one and not the other.




I don't disagree with that - As PU, I would clearly announce the 3-2 count when it became clear BR was heading to first.

I would hope the umpire does NOT send her back to first. I'm referring to the error by the umpire in what the batter runner did. If the umpire were PROACTIVE in the first place, and did their job, then we wouldn't have had the mess in the first place. Now that we do, when the umpire says, "batter, it's 3 balls, two strikes. Come back to the plate." and both runners start retreating, I don't think it is in the spirit of the rule to call the look back violation on the runner retreating to first. However, if the defense makes a play on her, and tags her out, the out would stand.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by LIBlueASA

I would hope the umpire does NOT send her back to first. I'm referring to the error by the umpire in what the batter runner did. If the umpire were PROACTIVE in the first place, and did their job, then we wouldn't have had the mess in the first place. Now that we do, when the umpire says, "batter, it's 3 balls, two strikes. Come back to the plate." and both runners start retreating, I don't think it is in the spirit of the rule to call the look back violation on the runner retreating to first. However, if the defense makes a play on her, and tags her out, the out would stand.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my first post.

As much as I agree that an umpire [I]should be[I] proactive in a situation like this (I also agree in announcing "Batter's out" when it becomes clear a (former) batter is running erroneously after a dropped 3rd strike), I do not believe that NOT being proactive constitutes a correctable umpire error.
Speaking of proactive - the even if it got to the point where batter was at first and R1 now was at second, the proactive thing to do would be to first call TIME - and then straighten things out.

PS: I still don't see the difference between the circle violation and getting tagged while off the base.

[txtrooper]

Dave, I would say it is a violation of the rules, as R1 has separated from the base.

It is not the umpire’s job to tip off the offense or defense to a play, the players and coaches have to also be in the game and know the game situation. Each of us announces the critical count, which were two ball and two strikes in the above situation. How can this situation be the umpire’s error? If the ball is live, you have to enforce the rules and not choose which calls you will make. If a LBR violation occurs, call it. If a tag is applied, call it. I would agree that when the umpires get together on the field to discuss a play would be a good time to suspend play.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

Dave, I would say it is a violation of the rules, as R1 has separated from the base.

It is not the umpire’s job to tip off the offense or defense to a play, the players and coaches have to also be in the game and know the game situation. Each of us announces the critical count, which were two ball and two strikes in the above situation. How can this situation be the umpire’s error? If the ball is live, you have to enforce the rules and not choose which calls you will make. If a LBR violation occurs, call it. If a tag is applied, call it. I would agree that when the umpires get together on the field to discuss a play would be a good time to suspend play.

Speaking ASA

When an umpire asks his partner for a count, both are performing "other duties" that draw their attention from the participants and the game. So, AFAIC, play was suspended, but what I think is irrelevant and completely up to the umpire's working the game.

[txtrooper]

Irish, that may have been the situation. Dave, did something unusual take place that was not relayed in the post, such as an umpire face to face? I skimmed over the part of the PU checking with the BU and do not know how that was conducted on the field. I was under the impression that he just asked him verbally from across the field and the ball was live.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by txtrooper

Irish, that may have been the situation. Dave, did something unusual take place that was not relayed in the post, such as an umpire face to face? I skimmed over the part of the PU checking with the BU and do not know how that was conducted on the field. I was under the impression that he just asked him verbally from across the field and the ball was live.

Even so, it still takes the umpires' attention away from the runners. Since it was stated that the PU checked with BU, I'm assuming it was more than simple eye contact, but rather an open request. To me, that is no different from cleaning either plate or responding to a base coaches question.

Now, if it was just a look and covert response, I can agree with the live ball.

[shipwreck]

I need to be a little clearer. Right before that pitch, the PU announced that it was 2-2. After the next pitch came in making it actually 3-2, and the batter runner took off for first and runner on second headed for second. The PU held up the 3-2 count toward me, confirming in his head that that was truly the count, and I held up the same count. By the time all this transpired, the runners were on their perspective bases. So with this extra information what do we have? I see 3 possible. 1. Look back rule violation. 2. Leave runner at second with a steal and bring batter back. 3. Bring both batter and runner back. What do you all think? Dave

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

I need to be a little clearer. Right before that pitch, the PU announced that it was 2-2. After the next pitch came in making it actually 3-2, and the batter runner took off for first and runner on second headed for second. The PU held up the 3-2 count toward me, confirming in his head that that was truly the count, and I held up the same count. By the time all this transpired, the runners were on their perspective bases. So with this extra information what do we have? I see 3 possible. 1. Look back rule violation. 2. Leave runner at second with a steal and bring batter back. 3. Bring both batter and runner back. What do you all think? Dave

With that clarification, I'll take what's behind Door #1

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by shipwreck

I need to be a little clearer. Right before that pitch, the PU announced that it was 2-2. After the next pitch came in making it actually 3-2, and the batter runner took off for first and runner on second headed for second. The PU held up the 3-2 count toward me, confirming in his head that that was truly the count, and I held up the same count. By the time all this transpired, the runners were on their perspective bases. So with this extra information what do we have? I see 3 possible. 1. Look back rule violation. 2. Leave runner at second with a steal and bring batter back. 3. Bring both batter and runner back. What do you all think? Dave

Not 3.
Sounding more like 1 to me... but I could see 2 - depends on when and if you feel the ball was killed to bring the batter back

Somehow I don't think you can get a final answer to what happened in the past. What matters is you have some information should something like this ever happen again....

[LIUmp]

With that clarification, I can clearly see the LBR violation.