[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by rex
Jim,

I got to disagree with you, Not on the rule or the inturp. It’s as you have said to me “It’s a matter of semantics” The play you called and the play Jim Evans called, are different but the same. There is enough difference in the wording on the exact same play that it makes two different plays. I just don't READ yours the 7.09(i) way.

JMO


rex

Here's what the runner and coach do in my play:

R1 rounds second, is going full speed for third, and looks as though he's going for home. The third base coach moves down the line, in the runner's projected path, with his hands raised over his head.

Here's what the runner and coach do in Jim Evans' play:

The runner flies around 2nd and is determined to score on the play. The 3rd base coach is pointing for the runner to stop at 3rd. Seeing the runner is not going to stop, the coach gets in the runner's path home and is run over by his charging player.

Similarities:

• Both runners intend to score
• Both coaches at least signaled their desire for the runner to stop (one points the other raises his hands)
• Both coaches move out of the box and into the runner's projected path

Differences:

• Evans' coach expressed his desire for the runner to stop before moving out of the box and into the runner's path
• Evans includes what the coach sees the runner doing

Now, neither of those differences change the outcome of the ruling here.

As far as the first difference - - it does not matter when the coach demonstrates that he wants the runner to stop, whether it be before or after entering the runner's path. All that is important is that it is apparent to the umpire that the coach did indeed want the runner to stop.

As far as the second difference, I cannot ever say what a coach actually sees, can you? All I know is what I see. And I quite clearly included in my play that the runner looked like he was going home - - just like a coach would see that it looks like his runner is going home. Whether you see it, or the coach sees it, is irrelevant. All that is important here is that it looked like the runner wasn't going to stop.

Just to summarize, the important elements in the play that needed to be established were:

• The coach somehow expressed, either verbally or by demonstration, that he desired the runner to stop at third.
• The runner demonstrated that he was not going to stop at third.
• The coach moved out of his box and into the runner's projected path.
• The collision kept the runner from possibly being put out at home.

So, rex, are you starting to read my play a little more the "7.09(i)-way" now? (grin)