look back rule

Welcome to Discuss Fastpitch

Your FREE Account is waiting to the Best Softball Community on the Web.

May 24, 2013
12,461
113
So Cal
This might be a stupid question, OK, it is a stupid question, but does the pitcher literally have to look at the baserunner for the look back rule to take effect? Or is it just merely the pitcher having the ball in the circle?

Obviously it's ideal to have your pitcher look at the runners, but if she just takes the ball and has her head down, and the runners are off the bases, can they do whatever they want -- stop or run back and forth -- until she looks up? Or as soon as she has the ball in her hand and she's in the circle, they have to pick a base and go to it?

No. The name "look back" is kind of a bad name for the rule. It's about possession of the ball, not whether or not the pitcher looks at the runner.
 
Sep 21, 2010
83
8
corinth,tx
my question is as always why would the runner stop 1 foot from the base? there is no reason to do that. if i was a coach i would be correcting my players on that fact. i hate it when baserunners do that slow walk back to the base staring at the pitcher. just get back and let her make the next pitch. oh wait is this the pet peeve thread?
 
Jul 21, 2016
3
0
No, the pitcher does not have to actually look at the runner. If she has the ball in the circle, the runner is allowed one stop and after that must IMMEDIATELY make a decision to get back to the previous bag or advance.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
my question is as always why would the runner stop 1 foot from the base? there is no reason to do that. if i was a coach i would be correcting my players on that fact. i hate it when baserunners do that slow walk back to the base staring at the pitcher. just get back and let her make the next pitch. oh wait is this the pet peeve thread?

All the more reason the LBR should be dumped
 
May 17, 2012
2,804
113
I watched a 16u team who used the LBR as an offensive weapon with runners on first and third. They would slow down runners (turn doubles into singles) just so they could get first and third. I watched them make some really good (high level A) teams look really silly. I kept watching for a LBR violation but they were always legal.

For all those that think they could defend it you couldn't. It was a never ending unless you conceded every single to be a double (with a runner on third).

The interesting part was how they held runners at third and first just to play that game.
 

MTR

Jun 22, 2008
3,438
48
I watched a 16u team who used the LBR as an offensive weapon with runners on first and third. They would slow down runners (turn doubles into singles) just so they could get first and third. I watched them make some really good (high level A) teams look really silly. I kept watching for a LBR violation but they were always legal.

For all those that think they could defend it you couldn't. It was a never ending unless you conceded every single to be a double (with a runner on third).

The interesting part was how they held runners at third and first just to play that game.

So you think it is an "offensive weapon" for a team to set up a possible double play situation by intentionally keeping a runner out of scoring position?
 
Mar 14, 2017
453
43
Michigan
I watched a 16u team who used the LBR as an offensive weapon with runners on first and third. They would slow down runners (turn doubles into singles) just so they could get first and third. I watched them make some really good (high level A) teams look really silly. I kept watching for a LBR violation but they were always legal.

For all those that think they could defend it you couldn't. It was a never ending unless you conceded every single to be a double (with a runner on third).

The interesting part was how they held runners at third and first just to play that game.

I realize this post is old, but I don't see having first and third is an advantage over second and third. I assume I'm missing something. Can anyone explain this better?


On a side note we used to use the look back rule as a defensive weapon, as long as you have good umps, that is. I would usually discuss our strategy with the umpires prior to the game.

When a batter walks with a runner on third the batter often continues to second base. Our pitcher (in the circle of course) would get the ball back from the catcher immediately and keep the ball in her glove. She'd look at the runner on third usually causing her start returning to third base. She'd then turn her back to the runner on third and watch the batter rounding first. The pitcher turning her back usually causes the runner and often the coach at third to get antsy and she'll change direction and start edging back toward the plate, or at least she'll stop wand watch to see if the pitcher makes a play to first.

At the point the Umpire calls the runner on third out on the LBR and returns the batter to first. The key is to warn the umpire ahead of time and to make sure the pitcher keeps the ball in her glove. The other coach will always argue that she was making a play on the batter, but ball in glove pretty much shuts that down.

I hope I explained this clearly.
 
May 17, 2012
2,804
113
I will try to explain this a different way. Imagine if your team only practiced first and third from an offensive point of view. Your team was so good at inducing the defensive team into making errors from the first and third situation that it was an offensive strategy for your team. Your players knew the look-back rule inside and out. Your team was fast. Your team can manipulate the first and third play where it will never end unless you want it to (such a scenario exists even with the look back rule).

I saw a team do this at a PGF National Qualifier (16u level). It was mildly interesting because I hadn't seen it used to that extent.

It was the equivalent to watching a basketball team that had an exceptional full court press and all they cared about was pressing you. All this team cared about was getting you in first and third situations.

Many coaches (and posters) respond by saying well we would do X,Y, and Z and shut it down. But you couldn't (fully). I watched many really good teams try and fail that weekend with many different techniques (they were ready for them all or had seen them all). Sure teams got some outs in some scenarios but the team in question won many more first and third scenarios than they lost.

The whole thing reminding me of that Mark Twain quote,

"There are some things that can beat smartness and foresight? Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn't need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn't do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn't prepared for him; he does the thing he ought not to do; and often it catches the expert out and ends him on the spot. "
 
May 17, 2012
2,804
113
It wasn't also limited to first and third defense after a pitched ball. They would manipulate runners during a hit ball to have runners at first and third in order to execute this offense once the ball was back in the circle (but before the next pitch).

An example was with a runner on first and a ball hit in the gap. The throw from OF would be towards 3B (trying to get runner from 1B advancing)....the offense would then hold the runner at 1B when they clearly could have made it to 2B without issue.

First and third ensues (before the next pitch) and runner on 3B scores while runner on 1B advances to 2B. That was just one scenario.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
42,830
Messages
679,468
Members
21,443
Latest member
sstop28
Top