Look Back Rule

[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.