Look back rule violation?
 

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.

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.

As I thought. Thanks so much!

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.

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? :p

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...

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.

:D 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.:p

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

Thanx.

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.

Ncaa
 

NCAA is slightly different:

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.:D

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.

I find it hard to believe that this new defintion of control is not in the 2014 Preseason Guide for NFHS Softball that Referee magazine puts out.

Also, the Softball site on the NFHS Central Hub in Arbitersports makes absolutely no mention of this change.

Maybe it's something that Ohio is doing. Here in Virginia, there has been nothing put out in any of our state clinics or other media that says this is the case.

Seconded for New Hampshire.

Also, didn't know NFHS had a DVD.

Whether anything is either in or out of Referee magazine means nothing whatsoever with respect to authoritative softball rulings. Putting it another way, they have no credibility (at least with me) regarding softball.

Ugh. This hurts.

Referee Magazine is probably the most effective spreader of misinformation regarding sports officiating that there is. Worse than announcers on tv, because they do it under the guise of some apparent authority. They generally get about a 60% on their OWN quizzes.

Oh, I agree they're not authoritative. And I'm usually one of the first to criticize things they put out for any sport.

But they are pretty good about announcing rule changes. They get into trouble when they try to elaborate the change with their example plays and their PlayPics (I still can't understand where they got the idea that an obstruction call in softball requires both the delayed dead ball signal with the left arm/hand and a point with the right hand...)

If there was a change in NFHS of what entails possession of the ball in the circle, they would have been all over it, but then screw it up with some flaky case play.

Good point.

I get the preseason guide, I've checked the NFHS website, I attended the Ohio state rule interpretation meeting and the usual local meetings covering rule changes.

No mention of this "new rule".

And...the same old case book play is still there (8.7.1E) where the pitcher puts the ball in her glove, then puts the glove between her knees and it says this satisfies "possession" with respect to the look back rule.

My 2014 NFHS rule book has not changed either.
8-7-1 . . . 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 of the ball within the pitcher's circle.

Check where your DVD is from. If from Referee Magazine, then that explains the problem. Referee Magazine is noted for putting out inaccurate information.

I got hold of Jerry Fick, the State Softball Rules interpreter and he told me that I got the ASA and the HS clinics confused again. So I must apologize for making incorrect statements.:mad:

Though I have found errors in the quizzes, your "60%" is a pathetic exaggeration. I doubt you even read them.

He probably does not have time to waste. :rolleyes:

I know I don't read them because the money I would blow on a subscription could be better spent elsewhere (and yes I did read them for a while).

As a stand-alone, I wouldn't buy the subscription, either. But as a part of NASO registration, it is worth it to me.

Agree

I absolutely do not anymore. You are correct. I had a subscription for 5 years. We used to grade them. 60 was common. Perhaps a slight exaggeration. But slight.

Perhaps they are better now, but they burned my trust a long time ago.

Honestly ... the articles weren't always a complete waste. Some were quite good. Then again, some were fraught with misinformation too. Definitely not authoritative in any sense. Sometimes useful. Often not. The quizzes were their low point.

The problem with this is you have to know the topic already to know when you are being fed a load of crap. If you can recognize it is crap, the article topic was not useful to you, and if you can't recognize it is crap, you are "learning" the misinformation.

Same with the quizzes. Even 10-20% objectively incorrect perpetuates myths or spreads incorrect information.

If they aren't going to provide quality content on softball, they should have stuck with their decision a decade or so ago to drop softball altogether because it wasn't a "major" sport.

Softball isn't the only sport Referee has issues getting things right...