Look back rule..(again:)

[Bretman]

It depends on whether or not the runner was reacting to something the pitcher did (i.e. prior to raising her arm).

Which is kind of like saying, "It depends on whether or not the pitcher was making a play before she started to make the play". Well...yeah. The same timing applies with respect to when the initial play was made and when the runner stopped, reversed, etc.

ASA Rules Supplement 34
J. While in the circle and in possession of the ball, any act by the pitcher that, in the umpire's judgement, causes the runner to react is considered making a play.

An umpire shouldn't get too liberal in his judgment on this one. I think that the point of the Rules Supplement is to clarify the idea that faking a play is equivilant to actually making a play. And remember: Rules Supplements are not actual playing rules. They are intended to clarify, illustrate or emphasize the playing rules, not supplant them.

Any act by the pitcher?

Suppose the pitcher blinks twice and the runner reacts to that. Would that then be considered as "making a play"? I hope not!

What if the pitcher stands like a statue, facing home plate, with her arms at her sides and turns her head to look at the runner? I don't think that too many umpires would judge that as "making a play".

How about if the pitcher turns toward the runner and takes a step or two toward her, giving the impression that she will exit the circle to attempt a tag. It could be reasonable to judge that as "making a play".

There is the usual act that we are all familiar with, where the pitcher raises her arm as if to make a throw. We would probably get universal agreement that is always considered as "making a play".

Of course, there is an actual throw by the pitcher, which should always be interpreted as "making a play".

You can see that there might be a broad range of actions by the pitcher between the two extremes. The best way I've had this explained to me is for the umpire to judge if the action by the pitcher could reasonably lead a runner to believe that a put out attempt is imminent.

[PDad]

An umpire shouldn't get too liberal in his judgment on this one. I think that the point of the Rules Supplement is to clarify the idea that faking a play is equivilant to actually making a play. And remember: Rules Supplements are not actual playing rules. They are intended to clarify, illustrate or emphasize the playing rules, not supplant them.

The rule explicitly says "A fake throw is considered a play." I think the point of the Rules Supplement is to clarify a play is what the runner interprets rather than what the pitcher intended. (Edited: Highlighted the portion of Bretman's quote I was addressing.)

... You can see that there might be a broad range of actions by the pitcher between the two extremes. The best way I've had this explained to me is for the umpire to judge if the action by the pitcher could reasonably lead a runner to believe that a put out attempt is imminent.

Agreed.

[MTR]

An umpire shouldn't get too liberal in his judgment on this one. I think that the point of the Rules Supplement is to clarify the idea that faking a play is equivilant to actually making a play. And remember: Rules Supplements are not actual playing rules. They are intended to clarify, illustrate or emphasize the playing rules, not supplant them.

The rule explicitly says "A fake throw is considered a play." I think the point of the Rules Supplement is to clarify a play is what the runner interprets rather than what the pitcher intended.

To start, Bretman is absolutely correct and I think you are reading more into it than stated.

He most likely means that umpires should not consider:

Turning toward the runner
Moving the ball around in the throwing hand or glove
Tossing the ball back and forth between the hand and glove
etc. as a play.

IOW, the pitcher must make some move that could lead to the retirement of a runner. And when it comes down to it, whether the pitcher, runner, coach or parents think is or isn't a play doesn't mean a thing if the umpire doesn't agree.