Look Back Rule

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Well... if the runner is halfway, then she had better have been moving one way or another before F1 started this slight movement of the ball... and assuming she was - and still was when the pitcher raises the ball, then of course you wouldn't rule her out.

That said, let me be contrary in saying that I DO believe there's a difference between a player on base and not on base ... here's why. Two reasons...

1) The reason "a play" releases the runner from the requirements of the LBR (however briefly) is that it forces a runner between bases to make a decision based on that play --- do I continue, or is this play going to require me to return the other way. The runner already on base is not forced to make a decision as they are already on the base. That small action taken by the pitcher is not going to require the runner to react.

2) This movement by the pitcher, with a runner standing on a base, is not the prelude to some other action. There's no reason for the runner to fear the ball being thrown to first, or to react to it. But given a runner OFF the base, this movement by the pitcher IS (most likely) the prelude to some other action designed to get that runner out... and that, after all, is what a "play" is, isn't it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying a pitcher can't really make a "play" on a runner who is on the base?

If that's the case, I respectfully disagree. I don't see anything in the definition of play, with respect to the LBR, that says the runner has to be off the base. It just says it's an action by the pitcher that causes a reaction by the runner. The reaction could be preventing the runner from leaving the base in the first place, couldn't it?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by VA-Blu

Notice the runner on third break for Home and the pitcher start to make a play on that runner, if this happens then there is no LBR for the runner at 1B. At least that is my understanding. So based on that action I got NOTHING.

VA

That appears to be a different play than the one we're discussing at 40 seconds on the video.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying a pitcher can't really make a "play" on a runner who is on the base?

No... I'm definitely not saying that at all.

I'm disagreeing with the premise that if a certain movement is considered a play wrt a runner who is between bases that it MUST also be considered a play wrt a runner standing on a base.

To me, for the reasons mentioned, the criteria for "a play" are not identical regarding a runner on a base and a runner still running the bases. I do not mean to take that to the extreme, as you have inferred, and state that NO movement can possibly be a play if the runner is on a base. There can certainly be movements that would be considered a play even to a runner on base.

(In either case, though, I don't think the movement by the pitcher in the play at 40 seconds on the video constitutes a play.)

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm disagreeing with the premise that if a certain movement is considered a play wrt a runner who is between bases that it MUST also be considered a play wrt a runner standing on a base.

First things first: I agree with you that what this pitcher did in the video is not a play. Her slight arm lift may have been an effort to adjust her uniform sleeve for all we know.

That said, I still don't understand your point. If the pitcher does something to cause a runner to react, it shouldn't matter if the runner is on a base or in between them. I don't think we need to figure out what movements constitute a play under one circumstance and not the other.

Heck, one could counter-argue that a complete fake throw by the pitcher won't cause a runner on a base to do anything because the runner knows she's not in jeopardy, so that shouldn't be considered a play.

[MD Longhorn]

Put it this way.

If a move causes a runner to react - it should lift the LBR. But a runner shouldn't leave a base solely because they think the LBR has been lifted. One move made toward a base where a runner is heading to is going to be far likely to draw a reaction than that very same move made toward a base a runner is already on.

Doesn't mean NO move toward a base can cause a reaction.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Points to be made:

The definition of a play is an attempt by the defense to retire a runner. Therefore, how can there be a play on a runner the defense has no opportunity to retire?

A runner "breaking for home" when the pitcher has the ball in the circle and the LBR is in effect is out. A pitcher making a "play" on that runner after she left the base is irrelevant as at that point in time, the ball is dead.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Points to be made:

The definition of a play is an attempt by the defense to retire a runner. Therefore, how can there be a play on a runner the defense has no opportunity to retire?

Speaking FED, there's a separate and distinct definition of play when it comes to LBR. It says, "Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runner(s)..." There is no stipulation that the action by the pitcher requires the runner to be in jeopardy of being retired.

Granted, it would be questionable what type of reaction is expected of a runner who is on the base. Quite possibly she intends on taking off to the next base to cause the defense to play on her in hopes of another runner scoring. Who knows.

On the flip side, if the pitcher outright throws the ball to the base for whatever reason while the runner is standing on it, you can't argue that there was no play made just because there was no opportunity to retire the runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Manny A

On the flip side, if the pitcher outright throws the ball to the base for whatever reason while the runner is standing on it, you can't argue that there was no play made just because there was no opportunity to retire the runner.

That argument would be unnecessary, as the ball would be out of the circle now - no LBR in effect anymore.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

There is no chance that's a "play".

I completely agree that this is not a play on the runner. The ball is simply lifted to shoulder level. There is no additional movement of the arm faking a throw to any base on this play, thus not attempted play.

Had she actually made a motion towards the base with the arm, faking a throw, then you have a "play" being made, and the LBR is no longer in effect.

This was a topic discussed at one of my association meetings this season. What constitutes a play being made to release a runner from the LBR. The agreement was there needs to be some sort of motion towards the base the runner is occupying, or the base she is going to for the LBR to be removed. In that portion of the video, the only motion I see is a lifting of the ball, which on its own is not a play in my opinion.

Given that this was a NFHS video, I would think the opinion of the NHFS is that a play must involve more than just lifting the ball up as well.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Look Back Rule - YouTube

Please take a look at :40 sec. In the context of the rest of the video, this is described as a violation of the LBR.

I see this as a play by the pitcher, and if the runner was between bases I'd definitely drop the LBR. Since the runner is on 1st at this point, I wanted to hear your feedback. Does a "play" (assuming you consider this a play) release the runner from the base?

This video gave me the clearest answer about the LBR rule question I had from the game with the "experienced" umpire I worked with. The portion of the video in question from 16 to 30 seconds was almost a carbon copy of what he called out as the BU.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Speaking FED, there's a separate and distinct definition of play when it comes to LBR. It says, "Any action by the pitcher intended to cause a reaction from the runner(s)..." There is no stipulation that the action by the pitcher requires the runner to be in jeopardy of being retired.

And that is the problem I have with this rule. If the runner reacts TO ANYTHING the pitcher does, there is no LBR. How is the umpire supposed to know why a runner left the base or moved in a certain manner?

How about a quick turn of the head or shoulders? If the runner stops, the umpire is required to assume it was due to the pitcher's actions, hence no LBR. What if the pitcher raises an empty hand? If the runner reacts, there is no LBR in effect according to this definition.

It provides for a wide range of inconsistency as what I or others would consider nothing, some umpire would be charging to the runner's defense stating s/he thought s/he saw something happen that made the runner react.

And this cat & mouse game, like this discussion, could go on and on and on and relatively defeats the purpose of the rule.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And that is the problem I have with this rule. If the runner reacts TO ANYTHING the pitcher does, there is no LBR. How is the umpire supposed to know why a runner left the base or moved in a certain manner?

How about a quick turn of the head or shoulders? If the runner stops, the umpire is required to assume it was due to the pitcher's actions, hence no LBR. What if the pitcher raises an empty hand? If the runner reacts, there is no LBR in effect according to this definition.

It provides for a wide range of inconsistency as what I or others would consider nothing, some umpire would be charging to the runner's defense stating s/he thought s/he saw something happen that made the runner react.

And this cat & mouse game, like this discussion, could go on and on and on and relatively defeats the purpose of the rule.

I can't argue with that. Unfortunately Fed rules in a lot of sports have these little quirks that allow too much interpretation of the rules by umpires/officials.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And that is the problem I have with this rule. If the runner reacts TO ANYTHING the pitcher does, there is no LBR. How is the umpire supposed to know why a runner left the base or moved in a certain manner?

How about a quick turn of the head or shoulders? If the runner stops, the umpire is required to assume it was due to the pitcher's actions, hence no LBR. What if the pitcher raises an empty hand? If the runner reacts, there is no LBR in effect according to this definition.

It provides for a wide range of inconsistency as what I or others would consider nothing, some umpire would be charging to the runner's defense stating s/he thought s/he saw something happen that made the runner react.

And this cat & mouse game, like this discussion, could go on and on and on and relatively defeats the purpose of the rule.

The casebook situation is not even really clear, and leaves too much to the judgment of the umpire, IMHO.

The key thing is really to get a reaction from runner. I have a problem with this because it leaves too much to the umpires judgment. Even in the example they show, when the pitcher raises her arm, the runner appears to react to the pitchers movement. Since the runner reacts to that motion, even though I don't consider it a play, I can see a coach having a strong argument that she left because of this movement, and thus it is not a LBR violation.


The rule really should do a better job of defining a play to be a throw or a fake throw. To define a throw or fake throw, the ball must be moved towards the intended target of the throw or fake throw.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

And that is the problem I have with this rule. If the runner reacts TO ANYTHING the pitcher does, there is no LBR. How is the umpire supposed to know why a runner left the base or moved in a certain manner?

How about a quick turn of the head or shoulders? If the runner stops, the umpire is required to assume it was due to the pitcher's actions, hence no LBR. What if the pitcher raises an empty hand? If the runner reacts, there is no LBR in effect according to this definition.

It provides for a wide range of inconsistency as what I or others would consider nothing, some umpire would be charging to the runner's defense stating s/he thought s/he saw something happen that made the runner react.

And this cat & mouse game, like this discussion, could go on and on and on and relatively defeats the purpose of the rule.

I guess it is asking too much to employ common sense.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

I guess it is asking too much to employ common sense.

Of course, you mean to just kill the ball, put the runner on the base and move on with the game.

Thanks, I agree.