need education on look back rule

[Greenmonsters]

The "look back" rule is one of those rules that is irrelevant to well-trained teams. It is a non-issue. The only teams that have problems with the look back rule are poorly trained.

The proper way to defend teams taking advantage of the look back rule:

(1) the pitcher takes the throw back from the catcher already in a position to throw the ball. The pitcher is sideways, facing either 1B or 3B, depending upon the situation. After receiving the ball, the pitcher walks back to the mound keeping an eye on the runner until the runner returns to the bag.
(2) The defenders are covering the bags, with the outfielders in appropriate back up positions.
(3) If the runner is too far off the bag, the pitcher jogs *AT THE RUNNER* showing the ball to the fielders at the bases on opposite sides of the runner. She continues running toward the runner until the runner commits to one base or the other, at which time the pitcher throws the ball to the appropriate bag.

After your team....can catch and throw under pressure and....learns the proper defense , it is an easy out.

Sluggers is absolutely correct IMO. Although implied, I just added the bolded part above to recognize that different age groups/ability levels are valid considerations.

 

[MTR]

(1) the pitcher takes the throw back from the catcher already in a position to throw the ball. The pitcher is sideways, facing either 1B or 3B, depending upon the situation. After receiving the ball, the pitcher walks back to the mound keeping an eye on the runner until the runner returns to the bag.
(2) The defenders are covering the bags, with the outfielders in appropriate back up positions.
(3) If the runner is too far off the bag, the pitcher jogs *AT THE RUNNER* showing the ball to the fielders at the bases on opposite sides of the runner. She continues running toward the runner until the runner commits to one base or the other, at which time the pitcher throws the ball to the appropriate bag.

After your team learns the proper defense, it is an easy out.

What mound? There is no mound.

Your defense works fine as long as there is not a runner on 3B and you are going after the runner who just rounded 1B. If that is the case and I'm the OC and it is a planned maneuver, I'll give you the out, but if I do, I'm going to get the run.

 

[T Red]

So MTR has something changed between my argument from this thread last year

http://www.discussfastpitch.com/softball-rules-questions/9616-two-lookback-ruling-questions.html

The key here is the point that the rules clearly state that when a runner is legitimately off base and is moving when the pitcher takes possession of the ball in the circle, the runner may stop once, and the proceed to the previous base or the next base. None state that the runner is allowed one stop between each base or under any circumstance as long as the LBR remains in effect.

to today?

I believe the arguement about being able to stop once after each base comes from pretty much the first sentence of the rule. ASA 8-7-T-1 "When a runner is legitimately off a base..... the runner may stop once....."

If a runner is off between 1st and 2nd, stops then advances to 2nd, but rounds second base, they are again legitimately off a base and per the wording of the rule, would be entitled to a stop and reversal of direction. I have seen arguements both ways on this rule, but as yet do not recall seeing a rules clarification on it. For that matter, I have yet to see a situation in a game where it would have even been an issue.

Absolutely true. The manner in which the rule is written, black and white, there is nothing prohibiting a runner from coming to a stop after legally being off a base and the ball is in the circle. The only time the rule prohibits that is if they have come to a stop on a base and then left with the ball in the circle.

 

[sluggers]

Your defense works fine as long as there is not a runner on 3B and you are going after the runner who just rounded 1B. If that is the case and I'm the OC and it is a planned maneuver, I'll give you the out, but if I do, I'm going to get the run.

But that doesn't have anything to do with the look back rule, does it?

My point is that the look back rule is only an issue for 12U and below teams. It is a non-issue as the kids become more skilled.

 

[Comp]

If your pitcher is acting like they are going to throw the ball, or runs out of the circle the lookback rule never goes into effect. If you have a runner at 3rd and the pitcher is messing around with the batter/runner as they round 1st, the lookback is never in play and the runner on 3rd can just stand there doing anything they want including increasing their lead. If you immediately get the ball back to the pitcher in the circle and they make no move to make any play, the lookback rule goes into effect the moment the batter/runner touches 1st base. The runner at 3rd must then immediately advance home or return to 3rd base. The pitcher still has plenty of time to make a play on the batter/runner at 2nd. Since the lookback took effect, the runner at 3rd should have returned to 3rd and if they try to advance on the play at 2nd a well coached team will get both outs every time. By 14's you usually do not see teams trying to score the run like this because it doesnt work anymore.

 

[Umpire]

So MTR has something changed between my argument from this thread last year

Nice work. Over the last few years, I've seen this several times on different forums. The know-it-all says one thing. I argue vehemently that they are wrong and give a different interpretation and justification. They absolutely refuse to even consider my point. The following year, one of their gurus says what I've been saying all along and they agree with them. Then they deny every saying it or say that I took it out of context.

It's one thing to have a change of mind or to have been convinced differently, but rather spineless and hypocritical not to recognize what you've said in the past.

 

[Greenmonsters]

Nice work. Over the last few years, I've seen this several times on different forums. The know-it-all says one thing. I argue vehemently that they are wrong and give a different interpretation and justification. They absolutely refuse to even consider my point. The following year, one of their gurus says what I've been saying all along and they agree with them. Then they deny every saying it or say that I took it out of context.

It's one thing to have a change of mind or to have been convinced differently, but rather spineless and hypocritical not to recognize what you've said in the past.

So, for the record, you're the know-it-all that is right. Even when you're wrong, right?

 

[Umpire]

So, for the record, you're the know-it-all that is right. Even when you're wrong, right?

Off the record, nope.

 

[BretMan]

Nice work. Over the last few years, I've seen this several times on different forums. The know-it-all says one thing. I argue vehemently that they are wrong and give a different interpretation and justification. They absolutely refuse to even consider my point. The following year, one of their gurus says what I've been saying all along and they agree with them. Then they deny every saying it or say that I took it out of context.

It's one thing to have a change of mind or to have been convinced differently, but rather spineless and hypocritical not to recognize what you've said in the past.

Don't you ever proofread this stuff?

You used singular constructions ("the know-it-all" and "one of their gurus"), then referred to each with plural pronouns ("they" and "them").

I'm just saying...

 

[Greenmonsters]

Don't you ever proofread this stuff?

You used singular constructions ("the know-it-all" and "one of their gurus"), then referred to each with plural pronouns ("they" and "them").

I'm just saying...

Easy, now Brettman. Look at the screen name, his eyesight might be the real reason for the apparent lack of proofreading.