Thoughts on a Look-Back Rule case

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

And I try not to make calls based on what a coach thinks or just to avoid debate.

Ok, I agree with that.

So what do you say when the coach PROTESTS after you describe what you saw and why you then ruled what you did anyway.

The rule gives us leeway in most "gotcha!" cases in that we alone determine what "immediately" means. There's no leeway on this one though.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Ok, I agree with that.

So what do you say when the coach PROTESTS after you describe what you saw and why you then ruled what you did anyway.

The rule gives us leeway in most "gotcha!" cases in that we alone determine what "immediately" means. There's no leeway on this one though.

I've made this point before to a chilly reception. But here's how I see it: If the pitcher was ready to pitch then this is a leaving early situation and that rule states that the player must maintain contact with the base. Get the out.

If the pitcher was not ready to pitch then this is a lookback rule situation. The player did not "leave" the base if her foot was straight above it, she just didn't maintain contact with it. Do not call her out.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

The player did not "leave" the base if her foot was straight above it....

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Yeah, that was about the reaction before. Everybody else thinks they are ignoring a rule when they don't call a runner out for cleaning her cleats. I think it's the way the rule should be interpreted.
If leave means to lose contact with (as most everyone here thinks it does) then there is no way to avoid calling this out. I just don't see how that's a natural reading and the consequences of it don't make the game better.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by youngump

If leave means to lose contact with (as most everyone here thinks it does) then there is no way to avoid calling this out. I just don't see how that's a natural reading and the consequences of it don't make the game better.

Personal feelings aside, I don't see how you can interpret losing contact with the base as not leaving. If she gets tagged while her foot hovers over the bag, you will have an out, no question. If she leans over to watch a fielder catch a fly ball, and her foot comes off but is still over the bag at the time of the catch, and then she takes off for her next base without retouching the bag, there is no doubt she is subject to an appeal for failing to tag up properly.

So I don't see any rationale in arguing for a different result under one rule versus all the others when it comes to a runner not being in contact with the base, just because it doesn't make the game better. The runner knows her responsibilities.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Speaking of justifying a call or no-call, from where does this "leave" versus "lose contact" comparison come?

ASA 8.7.S; NFHS 8.6.18 clearly state the runner is out if they lose contact with the base, not "leave" the base.

NCAA 12.20.1 & 12.20.2 also mentions losing contact with the base, but mixes in the notion of "leaving" the base.

Yes, a player shuffling or switching feet contacting the base has nothing to do with the rule at hand and it is clear the purpose of the rule is to keep the offense from gaining some type of edge and changing feet does not do that.

However, if the runner is leaning toward the next base or behind a base and in each case loses contact, that can place them in an advantageous position.

I see the "lose contact" as a standard set to eliminate the "buts" and "what ifs" and "spirit of the rule" arguments people, including umpires, raise to avoid addressing a possible violation.

If the player is losing contact to try and steal the signals, that can be an advantage gained that may have not been available had the not violated the rule.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

I've made this point before to a chilly reception. But here's how I see it: If the pitcher was ready to pitch then this is a leaving early situation and that rule states that the player must maintain contact with the base. Get the out.

If the pitcher was not ready to pitch then this is a lookback rule situation. The player did not "leave" the base if her foot was straight above it, she just didn't maintain contact with it. Do not call her out.

But that wasn't the sitch in Post#13. You had a runner who while trying to gain an advantage by seeing F2's signal to F1, lost contact with the base while the ball was in the possession F1 in the circle.
Wether the pitcher was ready to pitch or not ready to pitch has no bearing.
The runner wasn't 'cleaning dirt from her cleats' here......this is an out.