Thoughts on a Look-Back Rule case

[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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by 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.

The relevant portion of the lookback rule states:
Once the runner stops at a base for any reason, the runner will be declared out if leaving the base.

The relevant portion of the leaving early rule states:
When the runner fails to keep contact with the base to which the runner is entitled until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

If you believe leave and lose contact with are the same thing than there is no difference between what can happen during a pitch and before it. If you hold that leave means not to simply lose contact with the bag but to move away from it then you understand the rules differently.

In colloquial usage it's the same. I'm touching my desk right now as I type. If I take my hands off my desk and move my chair back slightly, I will no longer be maintaining contact with my desk but nobody around me is going to think he just left his desk.

I continue to believe that whether intentional or not that wording distinction is clear and to the point, conforms to how the game is usually called, and matches the intent and spirit of the rules.

Now, I take it you don't call runners out for cleaning their cleats while the pitcher has the ball in the circle. How do you justify that by rule? I'm imagining this scenario:

Coach: Blue did you see her clean off her cleats.
Umpire: Yeah, so?
Coach: Well was she in contact with the base when she did so.
Umpire: No.
Coach: Then she's out.
Umpire: Coach go back to your dugout.
Coach: We protest your misapplication of the lookback rule.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by youngump

The relevant portion of the lookback rule states:
Once the runner stops at a base for any reason, the runner will be declared out if leaving the base.

The relevant portion of the leaving early rule states:
When the runner fails to keep contact with the base to which the runner is entitled until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand.

If you believe leave and lose contact with are the same thing than there is no difference between what can happen during a pitch and before it. If you hold that leave means not to simply lose contact with the bag but to move away from it then you understand the rules differently.

In colloquial usage it's the same. I'm touching my desk right now as I type. If I take my hands off my desk and move my chair back slightly, I will no longer be maintaining contact with my desk but nobody around me is going to think he just left his desk.

I continue to believe that whether intentional or not that wording distinction is clear and to the point, conforms to how the game is usually called, and matches the intent and spirit of the rules.

Now, I take it you don't call runners out for cleaning their cleats while the pitcher has the ball in the circle. How do you justify that by rule? I'm imagining this scenario:

Coach: Blue did you see her clean off her cleats.
Umpire: Yeah, so?
Coach: Well was she in contact with the base when she did so.
Umpire: No.
Coach: Then she's out.
Umpire: Coach go back to your dugout.
Coach: We protest your misapplication of the lookback rule.

At some point while the pitcher has the ball in the circle, the rule being violated morphs from the look back rule to the leaving early rule. So, when, exactly, does your enforcement standard change from leaving early to losing contact? 10 seconds from now, if she lifts her foot she would be out, but now she is not?

Do you think that change-over in interpretation is what the rule writers intend?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Dakota

At some point while the pitcher has the ball in the circle, the rule being violated morphs from the look back rule to the leaving early rule. So, when, exactly, does your enforcement standard change from leaving early to losing contact? 10 seconds from now, if she lifts her foot she would be out, but now she is not?

Do you think that change-over in interpretation is what the rule writers intend?

At the time the pitch starts, when else would the losing contact section make any sense. And no I don't think they intended this to be written as well as it is. But I do think they intend for it to be called based on how it's currently called. Does anybody think that the rules writer wants the runner who clears her cleats called out?

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

I agree with your post, however the wording itself does lend itself to discussion. Unfortunately I have a couple coaches in my area, and umpires, who are lawyers by trade.

If you ever want to have a discussion about the way rules are written, have it with a lawyer-coach or a lawyer-umpire. By nature they will pick every single word apart. This can be a good thing, but at the same time, it can be a negative when you are the umpire and they are the coach.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I agree with your post, however the wording itself does lend itself to discussion. Unfortunately I have a couple coaches in my area, and umpires, who are lawyers by trade.

If you ever want to have a discussion about the way rules are written, have it with a lawyer-coach or a lawyer-umpire. By nature they will pick every single word apart. This can be a good thing, but at the same time, it can be a negative when you are the umpire and they are the coach.

Well, they can "think" whatever they want, doesn't mean they "know" and when it comes down to it, they can use all the references outside the game they want, I don't care.

And it only leads to a "discussion" when people think they know better and read into things looking for a nit to pick.

The rules are written for the game, not and grammar teacher or tech writer.