Look back rule clarification

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

The umpire made no error. Please tell me you're not saying "Take your base" or something to that effect upon calling a fourth ball. Calling her back during a live ball opens up all sorts of other cans of worms.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

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.

I can see the logic in calling her out. I can see the logic in saying the ball is dead... but there is no logic in your suggestion. Either the ball is live and she's out when she steps off 2nd, or the ball is dead and she stays. There's no in between as you're suggesting.