Thoughts on a Look-Back Rule case

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by agr8zebra

When this happened to me, I was working 2-man, I immediately thought about the LBR, but I quickly let it pass because for one I didn't want to have some coach on my bad side for the rest of the game, plus I didn't think the situation violated the intent of the rule.

What intent would that be

[agr8zebra]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

What intent would that be

The Look Back Rule was established to help speed-up the game by stopping the pitcher and the runner from “toying” with each other when the ball was being returned to the infield after it had been put in play. The rule was not established for the offense or defense to gain an advantage through “trick plays” or by “baiting” the other side into a violation.

[jmkupka]

That being said (Cecil's and Agr8's comments), my situation this weekend was, me in "C", R1 on 2B, her ready position had her rear foot on the bag.
In order to get a look at F2's signal, R1 leaned forward, bringing her rear foot waaay up off the bag, then back down. No early lead, no toying with F1.

What say you in that sit?

[agr8zebra]

I would walk over to the coach at 3rd base and in a voice loud enough for it to be heard by many(not yelling, but not quietly) I would say "Coach, if your girl at 3rd base wants to steal signs from the catch, she needs to be in contact with the bag(2B) or I am going to call her out". Problem solved.

The runner at 2nd isn't violating the intent of the rule but none the less is violating. She just needs to be better at steeling signs.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

That being said (Cecil's and Agr8's comments), my situation this weekend was, me in "C", R1 on 2B, her ready position had her rear foot on the bag.
In order to get a look at F2's signal, R1 leaned forward, bringing her rear foot waaay up off the bag, then back down. No early lead, no toying with F1.

What say you in that sit?

10U? Inform the coach that she can't do that.

Anything else, that's an out. They know better by then.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Anything else, that's an out. They know better by then.

"off the bag, then back down. No early lead, no toying with F1."
I disagree, but that's probably obvious.

[IRISHMAFIA]

IMO, there is no "leading" in softball.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

IMO, there is no "leading" in softball.

I guess it is time for my list of words that mean different things in games than the dictionary.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

"off the bag, then back down. No early lead, no toying with F1."
I disagree, but that's probably obvious.

How are you going to justify this no call when the coach comes out? I get not calling a player shuffling their feet. But stepping WAY off the base to look in - this is an elephant call you can't fail to make.

[jmkupka]

Absolutely right MD,

actually, the base foot went way up, not forward, and went straight back down. But, yes the front foot was indeed stretched 2+ feet toward 3B.

I'm sure it would have been just as illegal if she used the "front foot on the base" stance, then leaned back to see the signal, bringing the front foot up off the bag.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

How are you going to justify this no call when the coach comes out? I get not calling a player shuffling their feet. But stepping WAY off the base to look in - this is an elephant call you can't fail to make.

"foot went way up, not forward" That would fall under "gotcha".

And I try not to make calls based on what a coach thinks or just to avoid debate. If needed, I would explain to the coach that it is not the purpose or interpretation of the rule; then count him/her as a lost vote.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

That being said (Cecil's and Agr8's comments), my situation this weekend was, me in "C", R1 on 2B, her ready position had her rear foot on the bag.
In order to get a look at F2's signal, R1 leaned forward, bringing her rear foot waaay up off the bag, then back down. No early lead, no toying with F1.

What say you in that sit?

Easy, I've got an OUT.
What was your call?

[jmkupka]

By lead, of course I meant "no early leaving of the base to advance to 3B"

KJ, I made no call. Afterwards, that felt incorrect (hence the post).
As seen in this thread, I am able to rationalize, if not justify, my no-call.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

That being said (Cecil's and Agr8's comments), my situation this weekend was, me in "C", R1 on 2B, her ready position had her rear foot on the bag.
In order to get a look at F2's signal, R1 leaned forward, bringing her rear foot waaay up off the bag, then back down. No early lead, no toying with F1.

What say you in that sit?

My personal opinion on this. I am calling an out. Why? Her actions, of leaning with her foot off the base would appear to be an attempt to gain an advantage.

The rules require a batter to maintain contact with the base until the ball is released from the pitchers hand. This portion of the rule is specifically designed to prevent a runner from gaining an advantage. By leaning with her foot off the base, even though it might have been above the base was done with the apparent intent to gain an advantage, thus an out call.

I find this different than a player who, well on the base does a little hop to switch feet, but maintains and otherwise stationary position, or a player who while getting into position, loses contact slightly with the side of the base, as players often do. I need to see them trying to gain some sort of advantage, which stealing the signs is.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

...I need to see them trying to gain some sort of advantage, ...

Why?

I look at it differently. If the player is only "technically" losing contact (i.e. shifting feet, etc.) then I ignore it. I don't make "gotcha" calls.

OTOH, if she is cluelessly standing off to the side of the bag with no real attempt to make contact, the I'll make that call.

Requiring a standard of "advantage gained" is too narrow, and probably too inconsistent situation to situation (and, too "basketball-like" )