Circle Violation Clarification - Pitcher hand positioning

[rfmnz]

Circle Violation Clarification - Pitcher hand positioning

Can someone explain what position the pitchers arms have to be in (in the circle of course) for an umpire to call a circle violation on a runner (i.e. do her arms have to be straight and right by her side kind of like how a soldier stands at attention or can her arms be bent a little)?

I know if the pitcher raises her arm making an "attempt" or "pump" the runner can bounce around so to speak.

Look forward to better understanding this rule.

Thanks!

[MTR]

Circle Violation Clarification - Pitcher hand positioning

Can someone explain what position the pitchers arms have to be in (in the circle of course) for an umpire to call a circle violation on a runner (i.e. do her arms have to be straight and right by her side kind of like how a soldier stands at attention or can her arms be bent a little)?

I know if the pitcher raises her arm making an "attempt" or "pump" the runner can bounce around so to speak.

Look forward to better understanding this rule.

Thanks!

I am not aware of any rule set which addresses, and don't know why they would, such a issue.

The rule (ugh!) is clear that the runner is released only when the pitcher loses possession of the ball (as defined in the given rule set), leaves the circle or makes a play on ANY runner.

The definition of a play is the act to retire an offensive player. A fake throw is considered a play simply because if the throw is release, there may be an attempt to retire a runner. However, simple raising an arm is relatively nothing unless the umpire believes the pitcher can throw the ball to retire the runner from that position.

Of course, many people, including umpires and coaches, overthink the entire process and rule and find a way to invent things that are not part of the rule.

[swells9232]

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"

So, by definition it does not have to be an act that would cause the runner to get out, but instead any act that causes the runner to react to the action of the pitcher, in the umpire's infinite wisdom, negates the look back rule. So the location of the arms of the pitcher would not matter, only the reaction in the umpire's judgement.

[rfmnz]

I am not aware of any rule set which addresses, and don't know why they would, such a issue.

The rule (ugh!) is clear that the runner is released only when the pitcher loses possession of the ball (as defined in the given rule set), leaves the circle or makes a play on ANY runner.

The definition of a play is the act to retire an offensive player. A fake throw is considered a play simply because if the throw is release, there may be an attempt to retire a runner. However, simple raising an arm is relatively nothing unless the umpire believes the pitcher can throw the ball to retire the runner from that position.

Of course, many people, including umpires and coaches, overthink the entire process and rule and find a way to invent things that are not part of the rule.

Thanks!

[rfmnz]

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"

So, by definition it does not have to be an act that would cause the runner to get out, but instead any act that causes the runner to react to the action of the pitcher, in the umpire's infinite wisdom, negates the look back rule. So the location of the arms of the pitcher would not matter, only the reaction in the umpire's judgement.

Thanks for the ASA rule. Appreciate your help.

[MTR]

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"

So, by definition it does not have to be an act that would cause the runner to get out, but instead any act that causes the runner to react to the action of the pitcher, in the umpire's infinite wisdom, negates the look back rule. So the location of the arms of the pitcher would not matter, only the reaction in the umpire's judgement.

One of the more ambiguous comments in the Rules Supplements. If this were true, if the pitcher did anything, the runner could leave the base since the pitcher's actions caused the runner to react.

This is not taught in any clinics, schools or seminars I have attended or taught over the past 20+ years.

[ontheblack]

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"

So, by definition it does not have to be an act that would cause the runner to get out, but instead any act that causes the runner to react to the action of the pitcher, in the umpire's infinite wisdom, negates the look back rule. So the location of the arms of the pitcher would not matter, only the reaction in the umpire's judgement.

One of the more ambiguous comments in the Rules Supplements. If this were true, if the pitcher did anything, the runner could leave the base since the pitcher's actions caused the runner to react.

This is not taught in any clinics, schools or seminars I have attended or taught over the past 20+ years.

Unfortunately I have seen this interpretation from more than one ump

[UmpSteve]

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"

So, by definition it does not have to be an act that would cause the runner to get out, but instead any act that causes the runner to react to the action of the pitcher, in the umpire's infinite wisdom, negates the look back rule. So the location of the arms of the pitcher would not matter, only the reaction in the umpire's judgement.

Impossible, IMO, to name every thing that is or isn't. I teach this as the "reasonable man" theory.

Short version, if any action by the pitcher would/should/could make a reasonable person react, then the runner has the right to react. If the umpire believes any action by the pitcher is solely intended to make the runner react, then the runner has the right to react to that action.

But, if the pitcher did nothing that the runner should react to, then it remains the runner's responsibility under the LOOKBACK RULE to make one, and only one move immediately on recognition that the pitcher has control of the ball and with both feet in (or partially within) the pitcher's circle.

It may be just me, but I don't know of any rules body that defines a "circle violation". Let's call it what it is, which is a defined term, I believe; calling it a made-up name can often be the cause of made-up interpretations.

[rfmnz]

Impossible, IMO, to name every thing that is or isn't. I teach this as the "reasonable man" theory.

Short version, if any action by the pitcher would/should/could make a reasonable person react, then the runner has the right to react. If the umpire believes any action by the pitcher is solely intended to make the runner react, then the runner has the right to react to that action.

But, if the pitcher did nothing that the runner should react to, then it remains the runner's responsibility under the LOOKBACK RULE to make one, and only one move immediately on recognition that the pitcher has control of the ball and with both feet in (or partially within) the pitcher's circle.

It may be just me, but I don't know of any rules body that defines a "circle violation". Let's call it what it is, which is a defined term, I believe; calling it a made-up name can often be the cause of made-up interpretations.

Great post. Thanks.

[Bretman]

Thanks for the ASA rule. Appreciate your help.

Just remember that the Rules Supplements are not Playing Rules.

They are intended to explain, define and interpret the playing rules, not supersede them. In case of any conflict, the actual rule will trump the supplements. Sometimes, when discussing a rule with many possible scenarios (like this one, where it would be impossible to precisely quantify every possible action by a pitcher that might constitute making a play), they do tend to oversimplify or generalize the explanations.

I think this is such a case. Using ANY action by the pitcher that a runner reacts to is just too broad an umbrella.