Look back rule violation?

[LIUmp]

R1 on 1st. F1 has ball in circle in hand. Steps on pitcher's plate. She then rolls ball along side of leg so it is now being held between forearm/wrist and side of leg. R1 takes off for 2nd. F1: a. does nothing b. rolls ball back in hand. c. turns and looks at R1 and brings ball up to make throw to 2nd, but does not. Speaking ASA, is there a look back rule violation in a, b, c or not? I know the rule supplement mentions possession means in hand or glove and not between legs but what about this case? I also know rules supplements are not rules. Just want a clarification.

[RKBUmp]

ASA is posession and control, the rules supplement pretty much just repeats exactly what the rule states but gives a definition of exactly what "control" means. It is pretty specific that a ball between the legs or under the arm is not considered to be control of the ball.

Based on your description the runner has been coached very well and knows exactly what the rule states. Under ASA you do not have a lookback violation and your situations b and c mean nothing other than b would turn the lookback rule back on and reset the 1 stop and reversal of direction. Now, under any other rule set I am aware of they only require posession of the ball by the pitcher. In other rule sets you have a lookback violation immediatly when the runner leaves the base and again your situations b and c mean nothing.

[LIUmp]

As I thought. Thanks so much!

[Tru_in_Blu]

I've seen pitchers who either toss the ball in the air from bare hand to glove or basically flip the ball between hand and glove.

Are we saying that in the instant that the ball is "airborne" that runners can attempt to advance a base with liability to be put out, and not be called out by the look back rule? ASA ruleset, only, apparently.

Thanx.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I've seen pitchers who either toss the ball in the air from bare hand to glove or basically flip the ball between hand and glove.

Are we saying that in the instant that the ball is "airborne" that runners can attempt to advance a base with liability to be put out, and not be called out by the look back rule? ASA ruleset, only, apparently.

Thanx.

I don't read anyone here saying that.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

I've seen pitchers who either toss the ball in the air from bare hand to glove or basically flip the ball between hand and glove.

Are we saying that in the instant that the ball is "airborne" that runners can attempt to advance a base with liability to be put out, and not be called out by the look back rule? ASA ruleset, only, apparently.

Thanx.

By strict wording of the rule, if the ball isnt in either the pitchers hand or glove is it in posession and control? But, is a runner really good enough to time it to leave while the pitcher is flipping the ball back and forth between hand and glove?

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

By strict wording of the rule, if the ball isnt in either the pitchers hand or glove is it in posession and control? But, is a runner really good enough to time it to leave while the pitcher is flipping the ball back and forth between hand and glove?

Better yet, is an umpire really good enough to determine that the runner timed her release from the base while the ball was between the hand and glove, and not make the call?

[jmkupka]

PONY 9.8.t: Look Back Rule (FP) – The “Look Back” rule will be in effect when the ball is live, the batter-runner has touched first base or has been declared out, and the pitcher has possession and control of the ball in the eight foot (2.44m) radius of the pitcher’s plate.

PONY's POE 25 doesn't further define "possession and control" like ASA's RS 34 does...

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I don't read anyone here saying that.

Well, if not said flat out, there's a whole bunch of inferring going on.

If teams start to do this it could get pretty crazy. Some umps will always call the out on the LBR. We will have others who won't know what to do. And we'll likely have situations where partners may disagree.

[charliej47]

This year, NFHS clarified control by stating that it had to be in the hand or glove and that being held between the legs or with the arm is not control.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by charliej47

This year, NFHS clarified control by stating that it had to be in the hand or glove and that being held between the legs or with the arm is not control.

Charlie, I'm going to have to look that one up in the book. What page should I be looking?

Thanx.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tru_in_Blu

Well, if not said flat out, there's a whole bunch of inferring going on.

Just by you.

The situation you posed has the pitcher losing possession for a microsecond, and then positing that a runner was touching the base in the microsecond before they lose it, and not touching the base in the microsecond after they lose it.

NO ONE is implying anything close to that as a possibility.

The OP, however, the pitcher CLEARLY is described to be NOT in possession and control of the ball (by rule). And at that point, the LBR is off.

[MNBlue]

NCAA is slightly different:

10.2.1.3 The ball must be held and remain in one hand, either bare or gloved.
Notes:
1. Rolling (not tossing) the ball is legal as long as contact is maintained with thehand (including the wrist).
2. A ball dropped by the pitcher before her hands have come together and thenseparated shall be live and base runner(s) may advance with liability to be putout.

[charliej47]

Originally Posted by charliej47

This year, NFHS clarified control by stating that it had to be in the hand or glove and that being held between the legs or with the arm is not control.

The NFHS DVD on rules tht the interpreters have highlighted it. I don't have my current case book with me, but her in Ohio, this was discussed and we were told to watch for it as the coaches are aware of the change.

[RKBUmp]

Originally Posted by charliej47

This year, NFHS clarified control by stating that it had to be in the hand or glove and that being held between the legs or with the arm is not control.

There has been no change in the wording of the NFHS rule, and case play 8-7-1 Sit B would support only posession is needed.

Following ball four to B1, F2 returns the ball to F1 in the 16 foot circle. F1 places the ball under her chin as she adjusts her hair. Is R1 governed by the 16 foot circle rule? Ruling: Yes, because F1 is considered to have posession of the ball.