rule question

[andyh64000]

We had a runner on first take her lead catcher fakes and then throws to pitcher runner runs quickly runs back to the bag but over runs it a little into foul territory and comes back to the bag. She might have even hit the bag about the time the pitcher caught the ball.

The umpire calls her out...inning over. We end up losing a tight game 4-2 to be eliminated from the state tournament.

Is this the right call?

 

[BretMan]

I would be interested to know exactly why the runner was called out. Did a coach ask for an explanation? If he did, then the umpire should have been able to give him one. I have to assume that the out was called as a violation of the Look Back Rule- but that is just my guess.

As described, I can't envision a Look Back violation here, either in the spirit or intent of the rule.

 

[Doug]

Did she actually get on the bag briefly and then maybe lose her balance and come off, or did she basically just miss it and her momentum take her in to foul territory?

Sounds picky to me!

 

[andyh64000]

She touched the bag and basically ran through it.

I was the coach and the Ump said it was the lookback rule and it was his judgement call (meaning don't bother asking another ump for help).

 

[BretMan]

I pictured it as overrunning the base all in one fluid motion. If the runner did actually stop on the bag, then come off of it after the pitcher had the ball in the circle, technically it would be a LBR violation.

A runner briefly losing contact with the base because she is off-balance isn't really what the rule is designed for (thus my "spirt and intent of the rule" comment). The rule is designed to prevent delays in the game by having a runner dance around off the base, enticing the pitcher to make a throw or play on her.

Picture this play: Runners on first and third. Runner on first comes off the base and either just stands there or dances around, hoping to draw a throw and give the runner on third a chance to score. But the pitcher doesn't bite. Now we have a pitcher just standing there, refusing to make a play, and a runner just standing there, refusing to advance. How long would you let that go on? Before the LBR was invented, it could go on indefinitely. It sounds absurd, but it happened often enough- and wasted enough time- that the LBR was crafted to address it.

Most trained umpires will give the runner some leeway on a play like this. If the runner briefly loses contact with the base by accident, because she is off-balance or re-adjusting her feet on the bag, I wouldn't fault an umpire for ignoring that. That's not what the rule is designed to address.

On the other hand, by the strictest reading of the rule, technically the runner has violated the rule and could be called out. It's a picky call, but justifiable.

*EDITED TO ADD: I see that you explained she "ran through" the base without stopping while I was posting this response. In that case, I would say this should NOT have been called as a Look Back violation.

The rule requires the runner to immediately advance or retreat once the pitcher has the ball in the circle. By directly returning to first, the runner satisfied that requirement of the rule. Once she touches or passes the next or last base, the Look Back basically "resets". That is, she is allowed to stop once, again, and directly return to the base, again. So long as the runner directly returned to first after overrunning it, I would not have an out.

 

[andyh64000]

She definitely ran through the bag and then stopped about 3 feet into foul territory and pretty quickly (no more than a second) returned to the bag. I think she was surprised she over ran it. I didn't argue much at all...she was the only baserunner and it was early in the game. It certainly didn't cost us the game or anything like that but I did find the call odd.

 

[shockcoach]

I talked to the umpire who was on 3rd base about the call (he's my assistant coach) after reading this post. He said she was standing about 3 feet into foul territory between 1-2 seconds before the 1st base umpire called her out.

Sounds like an odd situation to me. Gotta love these 9 & 10 yr olds!

 

[andyh64000]

i think it was closer to 1 second but given the age group and the reason for the rule I was surprised by the call. Other than this (and with the letter of the lawI suppose he was probably right) the crew did a great job in a well played 9/10 game. We just needed to take advantage of a few of opportunities to score some runs.