Softball--pitching circle
 

R3, batter draws a walk and continues on to second without stopping. Pitcher is
in the circle.

a.) R3 leaves the base as pitcher's attention is diverted to BR and heads home.

b.) R3 leaves the base to run home and then pitcher makes a feint toward second.

c.) R3 leaves the base to run home after pitcher makes feint toward second.

Your call in each scenario? High School or LL answers.

Rita

Assuming you mean BR as R4 having already touched 1B, R3 is out.

R3 is out

Assuming you are referring to a throw as being feigned, the LBR is no longer in effect.

ASA & NFHS

Dont know the LL rules, but in all other rule sets in a and b, dead ball, R3 out, BR returns to 1st base. In c, live ball.

The Look Back rule is not in effect until the pitcher has possession of the ball in the circle (FED) (possession and control in ASA) and the BR has touched first base or been declared out. IF these two conditions are met, then you have as others have previously posted.

Thank you all. Just wanted to confirm my understanding of the rule.

Rita

I don't see enough information in a to answer properly to be honest.

a) If the attention is diverted to the BR that would mean the BR has not yet touched 1st base, and in this case the LBR would not apply since the LBR does not apply until the BR touches first base. At that point the BR touches 1st base, then you have a runner. If R3 left after you have a runner going from 1st to second, while the pitcher has the ball in the circle then its dead ball, R3 out. If it happens while she is still a BR (hasn't touched first), there is nothing.

b) This is pretty clear cut. Dead ball, R3 is out since the pitcher has the ball in the circle and no play has been made.

c) Since the runner left after the feint was made to second, the runner is released and there is no call.

ok - a related mechanics question - In FP/MFP, after a play with runners on, when do you actually stop watching the ball, and and actually start watching the baserunner(s)?

It is pretty amazing the number of umps I work with who will actually be watching the runners, without ever watching the BALL. And they are usually the ones who are calling time out every time an infielder asks- even with runners off the bases! :confused:....drives me nuts sometimes! :p


The proper answer, of course, is watch the ball, with glances at the runner, so you have a feel for what they are doing. Once I see that P going ALL the way in the circle with the ball, I then look at the runner - if they are still standing off base by the time I have turned my head - BANG! :D 41 to go.....

Obviously, I have no problem granting time, runners on or off the base :rolleyes:, but you are correct, they cannot effect a rule without being completely aware of all the elements and that includes the ball.

And that (BANG) is one reason I believe the rule has to go.

Something that might affect the answers here...

Though I've never worked Little League, I do seem to remember from past discussions that they have (or, had) a slightly different interpretation regarding the look back rule compared to other organizations.

Specifically, does LL have the same clause in their rule about the look back going into effect when the batter-runner reaches first base? I thought that their LBR went into effect immediately when the batter became a batter-runner, before they even get to first base.

LLSB: 7.08 - Any runner is out when - (a)(1) [blah, blah, wah, wah, wah] Note 1: [...] When a runner is off a base after a pitch or as a result of a batter completing a turn at bat, and while the pitcher has the ball within the eight (8) foot radius circle, the runner must immediately attempt to advance to the next base or return to the base the runner is entitled. Note 2: If the pitcher has possession of the ball within the pitcher's circle, and is not making a play (a fake throw is considered a play), runners not in contact with their bases must immediately attempt to advance or return to the base. Penalty: The ball is dead. "No pitch" is declared, and the runner is out. Eight (8) foot radius circle must be properly marked.

So let me get this straight. In LL Softball, if a batter walks, and halfway up the baseline to first, she stops in her tracks to remove a leg guard or elbow pad, she could be rung up for an out??

OR, "GOTCHA" umpires. :eek: :(

Not by me.

I wouldn't have done so, either, until I read what Crabby_Bob quoted. There is nothing in the LL rule that says the LBR doesn't start until the BR reaches first base. This has got to be an oversight that LL HQ needs to fix.

the runner must immediately attempt to advance to the next base or return to the base the runner is entitled.

INMO the BR does not become R untill she touches 1B ? When I atteneded LL International Umpire School at Williamsport the instruction for Softball was very limited. All of the instructors were Baseball Clinicians.

True for ASA. But not by the definition of Batter-Runner in the LL rule book:

"BATTER-RUNNER is a term that identifies the offensive player who has just finished a time at bat until that player is retired or until the play on which that player becomes a runner ends."

NFHS's definition of Batter-Runner is similar to the LL definition.

Really??? In 2013 we still have umpires that think it is their job to get outs instead of getting it right? :confused: The way you describe your mechanic is just wrong!

Also, why should a runner that just drove back to the bag not be granted time. I bet you have no problem giving time to a catcher when the pitcher gets wild or to call time after a runner is standing on the base (let's say 2nd) and wants to take off and give her arm protector to her coach.

I'll answer my own question. "Because in 2013 we still have umpires who think it is their job to get outs."

Please tell us the right way to interpret 8-7-T, and the proper mechanics for the PU & BU ?
Strikes & Outs baby. Google Oswald Tower if you want to get deep into the philosophy of Officiating.

Thanks, we do not have any LL Softball here.

No.. becuase that batter who just walked is not yet a runner, she is still a batter-runner. However it looks like in LLSB another runner who left base and stopped between bases while F1 has ball in circle would be called out whereas in NFHS and ASA they are not subject to the lookback rule until the batter-runner reaches 1B. Weird.

I'm not looking for a cheap out. And I am not going to guess an out. If she is still off base when I first see her she gets her chance to immediately move. After that then yes she is out.

Of course some times you have no choice but to call a cheap out. Twice this season in JV games I had a runner who had safely advanced from 1B to 2B for no discernible reason leave 2B and headed back to 1B while the ball was held by F1 in the circle. In one case I heard the girl tell her coach "I thought it was a foul ball" but she must have been the only one in the park who thought so.

Until a few years ago, ASA did not have anything stating the LBR went into effect until the BR was retired or became a runner

I assume you are all aware that the "reaching 1st" is a recent change.

Warning - Long post

Not a fan because it is geared toward the game of basketball which, IMO is a game where the rules are more often inconsistently applied than any other field/court game of which I am aware.

In softball, we basically refer to it as not going looking for boogers. If you see it, call it, but you should never go out there "looking" for the violation. If you want to "find" a violation in any sport, you probably can at will and that isn't supposed to be what the game is about.

However, I am mostly not a fan because of the contradiction. First you are told to make the call when you see a rules violation and then not make the call if it violation did not apply to the intent and spirit of the rule. And that is where I have a problem.

To start, unless you were in the room during the discussion, you really don't know the intent or spirit in which the rule was enacted. You can have varying opinions as to how and why and the purpose which brought the rule about, but that is the problem.

When passing along information, people have a tendency to apply their own little touch, an embellishment they believe to help others to understand. Problem is that just because you think it will help doesn't mean the person hearing it will take it in that manner. I don't think there is anyone who teaches that doesn't do this to some level, even to the point of changing the point of emphasis in an explanation depending upon to whom you are speaking.

I deal in documents involving people from 31 states & DC. I give specific directions which ask for a, b or c. Often I get 1, 2 or 3 simply because, in spite of what was typed, the respondents answered base on what they thought I meant. This has become commonplace in this country and is routinely evident on this and other boards. Well, if we cannot get people to get it straight when they have time to sit and think about it, what it going to happen when they have less than a half-second?

The "intent and spirit" of rules in general is to keep a level playing field. For someone to not call a rule because "they" did not believe it fell into this category usually makes the game "fair" for one team, not the other and that in itself is not fair.

But the biggest problem I have is that it is a readily available excuse for the weak umpire to not apply rules THEY for which they do not care or the pressure making a call may bring.

And before you all go off half-cocked, I am quite aware that some rules are in the book as a tool to address extreme or rare circumstances and are not meant to be a full-time collar on the players or a game. I am also aware of that some rules were geared more toward one game or level than another. That doesn't mean you ignore them, but may temper the application.

There are many people who take the "invisible official" way too far. Some umpire believe that means to just sit back until there is an egregious violation and then step up and try to smooth it out.

In today's world, if you have a sporting event where the official on the field or court is not noticed, it is possible something just isn't right. In softball, there are still way too many people who believe in the "if you an cheatin', you ain't tryin' " adage. It is usually when the team isn't getting away with the cheating that the official becomes visible, and rightfully so, that is his/her job.

The level of rules knowledge and skill of the participants doesn't help, either. We have all seen it. They do something stupid, or is a clear violation and it is the official's fault. How many times have the youth umpire heard, "let the girls play"? Of course, it is only when the violation was on their team, not the opponent. And I don't think I need to bring up the NCAA IP saga. You want the official to have no bearing on the game, have the participants learn and play the game by the rules THEY accepted. And when they make a mistake and it is a violation, get over it and move on. As a player, I was grateful to have an umpire who made the correct call without a team having to go beg for it. Not everything is an appeal.

IOW, I believe you are there to officiate the game by the rules that are meant to be applied routinely and apply those meant for game management or safety when necessary. No need to be loud or boisterous or put on some type of show to demonstrate what is happening. If the coach needs an explanation, you get together with the coach and explain it to him or her. Don't scream at them or dismiss them, they have a job to do, also. An official is part of the game, like it or not, and needs to be visible on the field, but not part of the show.

If you need to find out the difference, that information is usually available through an official source and that can be anything from an official web site to a UIC, assuming the UIC has done his/her job and stayed abreast of the rule changes and clarifications. Apparently, some cannot be bothered with the clinics and schools available and unfortunately, pass along bad information. An umpire serious about the craft will find a way to get the correct answer.

JMHO

Exactly. In my example of the girl who walked off 2B retreating to 1B because she thought it had been a foul ball.. she is certainly not gaining an advantage but it is an obvious violation of the rule. So am I the bad guy for making the call? Should I ignore this violation because she was going back not forward? Should I cut her some slack becuase she is a young player and doesn't know better?

IRISH +1 (Wow) very nice.

My opinion.

Low level and very young rec ball (10U, maybe 12U); ok. Anything above that, make the call.

We (well most of us, I assume) have had children. It doesn't matter how many times you tell them something, until there is a consequence, you are likely wasting your breath.

Let them learn; only the consequence will sink in and make it a lesson.

It is funny that when an umpire does make the obvious, but not popular call it is the "let the kids play" or "way to make yourself part of the game", etc. But don't call the IP and how are the girls going to learn? Then it is the umpire's fault for not calling it until you do on their pitcher. Then it is back to the same old whine.

No, you make the call because once you don't, people will take that as the way it is and when the next guy does make the proper call, s/he takes the heat for you being a nice guy.

IMO, it is the umpire's job to enforce the rules and the coaches' job to teach the players the game. If both are competent in their respective responsibilities, there shouldn't be a problem.

If you don't want the umpires to do the job for which they are being paid, don't hire umpires. Asking the umpire to do otherwise is not fair to the umpire or the teams. Its like giving a soldier a gun to defend someone/thing, but no ammunition or a firefighter a hose to extinguish a forest fire, but no water.

Last weekend, in a tournament that was made of teams going to 12A Nationals, I had at least 6 different pitchers who were not pausing at all after bringing their hands together.

Most of them did a nice job in making the adjustment after the first violation.

This one P from a TN team, did not. 6 IP's in a row.

Coach uses all the standard excuses, no one has ever called it before, that is the way she was taught to pitch, blah, blah, blah.

Also, this same team's F3 committed OBS on multiple occasions on pick off attempts.

At one point, while it was still relatively civil, I asked the coach to give me a list of the rules he would like us to ignore.

It did not end well, we had an ejection post-game.

You have to wonder how someone could make this a hard adjustment. All the pitcher has to do is count to "one" when the hands come together and then proceed.

Tony, while it is true you cannot fix stupid, it is just outright mean when you bait them. :)

You already said 12&U, but oh, Nationals level. ;)

That is true, Mike.
But sometimes stupid folks make it impossible not to.
When I run into them, I usually have them immediately go see the tournament uic - especially when they say that's what they want to do.

[QUOTE=IRISHMAFIA;899369]Warning - Long post

A dissenter to the Oswald Tower Philosophy with rebuttal Comments from Jay Miner in bold text between *****asterisks.*****



Warning - Long post by dissenter


Not a fan because it is geared toward the game of basketball which, IMO is a game where the rules are more often inconsistently applied than any other field/court game of which I am aware. *****The real function of a true sport’s official is to preserve a safe environment for the participants and maintain fairness with a realistic approach during the quest of opposing teams attempting to win the contest.*****

In softball, we basically refer to it as not going looking for boogers. If you see it, call it, but you should never go out there "looking" for the violation. If you want to "find" a violation in any sport, you probably can at will and that isn't supposed to be what the game is about. *****The preceding text sounds very much like the Oswald Tower Philosophy. By the way, John Bunn, another truly great sport’s officiating philosopher extraordinaire, was a huge proponent of The Oswald Tower Philosophy for all sports. Researchers will have great difficulty finding any credible dissenters of the Oswald Tower Philosophy of officiating or detractors of the highly respected John Bunn. All serious officials should Google the names of those two men and analyze their philosophies of officiating.*****

However, I am mostly not a fan because of the contradiction. First you are told to make the call when you see a rules violation and then not make the call if it violation did not apply to the intent and spirit of the rule. And that is where I have a problem. *****The Tower Philosophy is a guideline that espouses applying the spirit and intent of the rule rather than the reader’s literalistic interpretation of written rulebook text. The Tower Philosophy was founded to enlighten officials and provide them a way not to call infractions not intended by the spirit and intent of the rules. Officials who are ultra-literal minded, strict constructionists, often don’t realize they are hurting their careers by being over officious and dogmatic in their approach to managing a competitive event. That fact is known by anyone who attends coaches meeting on a regular basis.*****

To start, unless you were in the room during the discussion, you really don't know the intent or spirit in which the rule was enacted. *****Shame on any official who does not understand the spirit and intent of a rule and why the rule was necessary. An official who doesn’t understand “purpose and intent” is shortchanging the athletes playing the game. Any credible official has the responsibility to research the intent and purpose of the rule and why the rule was adopted. Without that information the official will be at a disadvantage in difficult situations where rules’ knowledge, common sense, thoughtful reasoning and good judgment are vitally important. There are many knowledgeable interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors willing to share their expertise about why a particular rule is necessary.***** You can have varying opinions as to how and why and the purpose which brought the rule about, but that is the problem. *****That is why interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors exist.*****


When passing along information, people have a tendency to apply their own little touch, an embellishment they believe to help others to understand. Problem is that just because you think it will help doesn't mean the person hearing it will take it in that manner. I don't think there is anyone who teaches that doesn't do this to some level, even to the point of changing the point of emphasis in an explanation depending upon to whom you are speaking. *****That is why interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors are necessary.*****


I deal in documents involving people from 31 states & DC. I give specific directions which ask for a, b or c. Often I get 1, 2 or 3 simply because, in spite of what was typed, the respondents answered base on what they thought I meant. This has become commonplace in this country and is routinely evident on this and other boards. Well, if we cannot get people to get it straight when they have time to sit and think about it, what it going to happen when they have less than a half-second? *****It is the task of dedicated interpreters, instructors, rule’s committee members and published authors to inculcate their wisdom.*****



The "intent and spirit" of rules in general is to keep a level playing field. For someone to not call a rule because "they" did not believe it fell into this category usually makes the game "fair" for one team, not the other and that in itself is not fair. *****The number one complaint of coaches and athletics’ administrators is they deplore officials who have established themselves as nitpickers who unnecessarily inflict themselves upon a contest.*****

But the biggest problem I have is that it is a readily available excuse for the weak umpire to not apply rules THEY for which they do not care or the pressure making a call may bring. *****It is much more likely the weak, unsure or poorly prepared umpire has no faith in their ability to fairly judge and adjudicate situations and who therefore seek a black or white ruling for every possible scenario that possibly might arise.*****

And before you all go off half-cocked, I am quite aware that some rules are in the book as a tool to address extreme or rare circumstances and are not meant to be a full-time collar on the players or a game. I am also aware of that some rules were geared more toward one game or level than another. That doesn't mean you ignore them, but may temper the application. *****The preceding text sounds very much like the Oswald Tower Philosophy.*****

There are many people who take the "invisible official" way too far. Some umpire believe that means to just sit back until there is an egregious violation and then step up and try to smooth it out.



In today's world, if you have a sporting event where the official on the field or court is not noticed, it is possible something just isn't right. In softball, there are still way too many people who believe in the "if you an cheatin', you ain't tryin' " adage. It is usually when the team isn't getting away with the cheating that the official becomes visible, and rightfully so, that is his/her job.



The level of rules knowledge and skill of the participants doesn't help, either. We have all seen it. They do something stupid, or is a clear violation and it is the official's fault. How many times have the youth umpire heard, "let the girls play"? Of course, it is only when the violation was on their team, not the opponent. And I don't think I need to bring up the NCAA IP saga. You want the official to have no bearing on the game, have the participants learn and play the game by the rules THEY accepted. And when they make a mistake and it is a violation, get over it and move on. As a player, I was grateful to have an umpire who made the correct call without a team having to go beg for it. Not everything is an appeal.



IOW, I believe you are there to officiate the game by the rules that are meant to be applied routinely and apply those meant for game management or safety when necessary. No need to be loud or boisterous or put on some type of show to demonstrate what is happening. If the coach needs an explanation, you get together with the coach and explain it to him or her. Don't scream at them or dismiss them, they have a job to do, also. An official is part of the game, like it or not, and needs to be visible on the field, but not part of the show.



If you need to find out the difference, that information is usually available through an official source and that can be anything from an official web site to a UIC, assuming the UIC has done his/her job and stayed abreast of the rule changes and clarifications. Apparently, some cannot be bothered with the clinics and schools available and unfortunately, pass along bad information. An umpire serious about the craft will find a way to get the correct answer. *****The previous five paragraphs appear to be off subject and not related to the Oswald Tower Philosophy of Sports’ Officiating. Therefore, no comments are offered.*****

Not ASA? Isn't it the ASA interpretation that the hands must touch to satisfy the 1-10 seconds, i.e., we're not to nitpick less than one second?

In each case, P would take the PP with both hands separated, then begin the windup where the hands might touch for an instant during the windup.

It is my ASA understanding that P must bring both hands together, pause, then when the hands separate the pitch then begins.

Am I misinformed?

I've never heard that before.

RS#40C states in part, "After taking or simulating taking the signal, bringing the hands together and keeping them together a minimum of one second and not more than 10 seconds..."

It doesn't sound like an instantaneous tap of the hands together would meet the requirement. If it does, then the RS needs to be updated.

The pause must take place after the pitcher has assumed the pitching position on the pitchers plate and while the hands are still separated. This is to allow the batter to know that the pitcher is about to pitch and to prevent the immediate step onto the PP and moving directly into the delivery.

The rule does state that the hands must come together for between one and ten seconds as Manny stated, but the interpretation has always been that as long as the hands touch, even if it is during the windup, the requirement is met.

The pause is required before the hands are joined, while simulating "taking a signal".

Not that I don't believe you, but if that's the accepted interpretation, then as I mentioned before, the rule and rule supplement in the book needs to be changed.

I don't remember that interpretation in any clinics I've attended. Of course, my memory is following the same route as the hair on top of my head...

Don't know about clinics as such, but generally accepted practice. Everything can't be in the book, or we would call it Rulepaedia. :rolleyes:

Besides, with rounding, a second is 0.5000000001 second and who can tell that from 0.0000000001 second. ;) :D

Speaking Fed, 6-1-1-c "...the pitcher shall bring the hands together in front of the body for not less than one second and not more than 10 seconds before releasing the ball. The hands may motionless or moving.

What Andy is stated is true, has been for more than twenty years, just a simple touch. However, it should be noted that there is no requirement for a stop or pause with the hands together.

I would assume the interpretation to a touch being considered one second was because what you think is one second, what Andy thinks is one second and what I think is one second, may be three different things and this would probably cause more havoc than it is worth and would not be helpful for the game or its flow.

But let's look @ 6.1.E and RS #40.c. They do not read the same.

The rule states that the pitcher must bring the hands together not less than one second or more than ten seconds before releasing the ball.

That could be read that the pitcher has to bring her hands together not less than one second prior to releasing the ball, but must release within ten seconds after bringing them together.

The RS does state that the hands must be kept together for at least one second, but not more than ten.

And if you think about it, is there any good purpose of having a minimum time? The pitcher has already paused on the PP with the hands separated to alert the batter that the pitch will be coming shortly. Well, there isn't until someone catches on that there is no requirement to come together immediately out of the pause.

Yes, you are misinformed. There are really two separate issues being discussed here. First is the pause, second is the minimum time the hands are together. They are not related, except that both are part of the pitching rule.

The only pause either ASA or NFHS requires is with the hands separated while taking, or pretending to take, the signals from the catcher. The purpose of the pause is to prevent a quick pitch.

The touch (bringing the hands together) followed by separating the hands does start the pitch in ASA, but not NFHS. In NFHS, the pitch is started with the motion of the windup (which may be before the hands actually separate).

The hands may be in motion while together; no pause is necessary here. IOW, this is part of the wind-up.

In ASA, the touch-and-go has been an accepted interpretation of the 1 second minimum for years, although this interpretation has never been put in writing AFAIK.

I don't do international rules, but IIRC previous discussions on this board, the international rules make it clear that touch-and-go is not accepted by making the timing 2 to 10 seconds rather than 1 to 10.

It's the hands separating that defines the start of the pitch in ASA.

Fed 6-1-2a) The pitch starts when one hand is taken off the ball or the pitcher makes any motion that is part of the windup after the hands have been brought together.

Thanks for the correction. I mis-stated the rule.

I too appreciate the various feedbacks.
I guess forums like this are the closest thing to a Rule-a-pedia.

Does that mean we all have to go seek asylum in a TWC? ;):D

Where every play is a TWP!!!! :cool:

As if we really need to leave here to find them. They find us! :eek: