Thoughts on a Look-Back Rule case
 

One out, Runners on the corners, pop fly to the pitcher standing on the rubber in the pitching circle. Immediately following the catch runner on 3B jumps off 2 to 3 steps and then moves back to be on 3B.

Any thoughts of calling the Look-Back Rule?

I think the way the rule is technically written it would be a LBR violation, however I would be hard pressed to call the violation as it is clearly a part of the playing action of the batted ball being caught.

As long as the runner, after she left, and stopped, immediately returned to 3b I'm not calling anything. If she stops, than dances, then I am calling a LBR.

For purposes of fielding a batted ball the circle has no meaning, the pitcher is no different than any other fielder. Rule supplement 34 E.

The only question this brings up is at what point does the fielding of a batter ball end, and does the LBR portion requiring posession of the ball in the circle begin?

I'm not arguing with you, as I think we both would agree this OP is not a LBR violation, the question is when does the prohibition begin?

When the umpire judges it to be so. That's why we get paid the big bucks.

^^^ this. Just like the pitcher who fields a ground ball or line drive.

The umpire must judge that the pitcher is no longer acting as a fielder, but is now taking the position of a pitcher.

I would strongly encourage the umpire to be very deliberate in making that determination and giving the runner(s) an extra heartbeat or two to react by returning or advance to the base prior to enforcing the LBR.

I suspect you mean the item this game calls a pitcher's plate. It might be made of wood (ASA), or any suitable material (NCAA and NFHS), according to the rule books.

Or did she stand on her galoshes? Playing safe softball?

I have always said the LBR is not a "gotcha" rule, just a delay deterrent.
Could have called a runner for it today, but standing still obviously not realizing she was not touching the base.

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 :confused:






;)

And yet, I hear so many softball players and coaches call it a rubber. ;)

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.

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?

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.

They also call the circle the mound. That doesn't make it correct... unless you are saying you always go along with what players and coaches say! :D

To create 10,000 complaints a season by coaches! :D

+1

Same for its conjoined twin... the leaving early rule.

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

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.

IMO, there is no "leading" in softball.

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

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.

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.

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.

"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. :rolleyes:

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

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.

:eek:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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" ;))

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?

At the same time you say gaining an advantage is too narrow, you will still employee a similar situation if she "technically" loses contact switching feet, ect.

Every official, like it or not, uses advantage disadvantage in making at least some calls. If we are so technical that we follow the exact wording of the rules, we are making gotcha calls on plays like this.

Remember the job of the official is to implement the rules in a fair and equitable manner, not to play judge jury and executioner.

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?

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.

Yes, at the same time. Because they are different standards.

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.