A runner who is in motion when the ball goes back to the pitcher in the circle does have 1 stop and then may choose to advance or retreat. A runner who is off base and not in motion when the ball goes back into the circle is required to immediately either advance or retreat and are not entitled to stoping. Once they choose which direction they are going they are committed. A runner who is on a base may not leave after the ball is in the circle. And yes, agreed, immediatly does not mean quickly.
When can a runner steal?
- Thread starter case20
- Start date
Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch
Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.
A runner who is in motion when the ball goes back to the pitcher in the circle does have 1 stop and then may choose to advance or retreat. A runner who is off base and not in motion when the ball goes back into the circle is required to immediately either advance or retreat and are not entitled to stoping. Once they choose which direction they are going they are committed. A runner who is on a base may not leave after the ball is in the circle. And yes, agreed, immediatly does not mean quickly.
The OP said his daughter was in the circle, standing behind the rubber taking signs. My presumption is that the runner is on the base. If that is the case, she cannot run until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand for the pitch. So she should be out for leaving WAY early. Is that the case?
Incidentally, I believe the rules also state that the pitcher must take her sign while on the pitcher's plate. She is supposed to get on and then take the sign (or feign doing so if there are no signs) before pitching. Could she be called for an illegal pitch for not taking the rubber first?
Incidentally, I believe the rules also state that the pitcher must take her sign while on the pitcher's plate. She is supposed to get on and then take the sign (or feign doing so if there are no signs) before pitching. Could she be called for an illegal pitch for not taking the rubber first?
Nothing restricts when or where the pitcher may take the signal. The only thing the rule states is the pitcher must take, or simulate taking the signal after engaging the pitcher plate with the hands remaining separated. Basically the pitcher must pause for a moment with the hands apart after engaging the pitching plate.
This rule is a source of significant confusion. As Comp says it really has nothing to do with where or how the pitcher receives the signal. The intent of the rule is to ensure the pitcher starts pitching without any forward motion/momentum. In the absence of this rule a pitcher could perform a walk though and it would be considered a legal pitch.
The rule is not a source of confusion at all. Poor reading comprehension is. People need to read the titles and the specific wording of the rules. The rule could not be clearer.
The rule books are not well written and leave much open to interpretation. Garbage in. Garbage out.
Last edited:
Greenmonsters
Wannabe Duck Boat Owner
While I will agree that not all coaches have fully read or understand the LBR, it is fallacy to claim the inconsistent application of the rule by some umpires isn't also responsible for some of the confusion that exists.
The rule would be much clearer if it simply said the pitcher has to pause instead of the BS about taking the signal or appearing to do so.
What you are suggesting is a change in the rule; and that recommendation is fine. But wanting a different rule doesn't mean that someone with a third grade reading comprehension shouldn't be able to understand the rule as written.
And yes, I agree with others. The rule books are poorly written. They become just short of a disaster when there are rule changes and they don't consider the effects on other rules.
For instance, since people are talking about it in another thread, the "look back rule," which is the stupidest name they could have given it in the first place, was changed many years back so that it didn't go into effect until the batter-runner reached 1st base. Well, by rewriting the rule, they actually eliminated having the potential for a LBR violation unless there was a batter who became a batter-runner. Arguably, they language is still there; but in reality, the completely screwed up the rule with the change.
Likewise, since people are talking about the double-base in another thread, why does it refer to "force" outs at 1st base? There are no force outs at 1st base because the batter-runner is never forced to advance if she doesn't want to. Only forced runners create force outs.
The day is too short to point out more.
