Quote:
Originally posted by Rog
Well, I have to admit I've never seen this happen. But then, I've not seen alot of things.
Something also tells me that the meat hooks will be working overtime on this call, if it were made.
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Warren Willson
Surely you can admit that there is a difference between a coach merely signalling his runner to STOP (legal), and physically ensuring that he MUST stop (illegal)?
In this case, that difference is represented by the coach performing one single act - placing himself directly in the runner's path and physically preventing the runner's advance. Whether the runner plows into him, or merely bumps into him in pulling up where he hadn't intended to stop, we now have a "physical assistance" from that coach. I might even go a step further than Evans, and claim that causing his runner to break stride by deliberately, physically standing in his base path is also "physical assistance", as distinguished from merely signalling the runner to return, but that's another issue. Evans' point is that we had physical contact and the runner benefited from that contact by returning safely to a base.
The coach's action is illegal in two ways; (a) because he is out of the box, and by much more than is normally tolerated, and (b) because of what his action was intended to achieve - the physical prevention of his runner being thrown out at home AND the safe return of his runner to 3rd.
The end result is that the runner was illegally physically assisted to return to 3rd base safely. It is the "end result" that matters in coach's interference.
Remember that such plays are designed to show a principle. Often they can represent unlikely acts, but the principle remains unchanged. The principle involved in coach's assistance is that a base coach may not physically assist his runner to acquire or reacquire a base. Evans' play shows that this physical assistance does NOT require that contact only be from the coach's hands on the runner. The whole body can be used for physical assistance, too! This runner was physically assisted to reacquire 3rd base, even when he clearly hadn't wanted to do so, despite the fact the coach did not place his hands on the runner. That's interference.
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 04:57 PM]
|
[/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with Rog who earlier said this might be a $hithouse when you make the call. It would be an unusual call on an unusual play. Warren's description of the "principle" involved is why I think you have to call it if you see it.
I'm just wondering what you mean by
...out of the box by much more than is normally tolerated. Since we don't call the coach out of the box except by "request" of the opposing coach [exception the coach is much too close to the batter putting himself in what I determine to be harm's way] are we not saying that the coach is not where "you would typically expect him" rather than the distance away from the so called coach's box?
I understand the play more fully now and agree with the decision. No then again, can we go to the videotape? Jim Simms/NYC
P.S. We are bracing for 12-24 inches tomorrow night. Anyone no the weather report for Sydney?