[rex]

quote:

PLAY: Runner on first. B1 laces a liner to the gap in right-center. 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. R1 rounds third and crashes into his coach, both of them falling to the ground.

In the meantime, the BR had rounded first and was steaming toward second. He reached second and rounded it a bit too far. F9 had retrieved the ball, and fired his relay to F4. F4 turned, saw R1 and his coach collide and fall to the ground, and then fired to second just in time for F6 to tag out the BR diving back to second.

F6 turns and fires to F5. R1 scrambles back to third just in time before F5's tag touches him on his back.


There’s some things about this play that has gotten bizarre. We got a runner “going full speed FOR third” A ball in “right- center”. Now then this runner started out at first and now he’s on his way to third and looking home. That tells me the ball is way in the hell out there. The ball being thrown to f4 supports this theory. F9 didn’t go for third via f6 that would be in a better line from right center field. Nor did he go to F2 with F1 being the cut off.

Now then this runner is not making right angle turns, so he’s swinging way out. Why because he’s going full speed. It’s tuff to make a 90 degree turn when your running full bore.

Then we get this base coach moving down the line (I’ll bet he’s watching the ball and what the fielders are doing) then he sees F9 cock back and fire the ball. Now he’s football referee and throws his hands up. This base coach is in the runners “projected path”. When they make contact it ain’t projected anymore, it is his base path.

All this time we have a B/R who is now at and past second and as described on his way back. Isn’t second closer to the ball than third. That’s why F4 threw to F6, not because he saw R1 crash with his coach.

The projected base path phrase is written in only as a means to confirm for the sake of the ruling the base coach did bad. For the sake of the play the runners base path will cut through the coach’s box. Remember the coach was moving before the runner GOT to third. Now the hell would the coach know the runner’s intent to go home when he hadn’t reached third yet. If he was gonna “BLOCK” the runner he sure as hell won’t have moved “down the line”. Buy my figuring if he wanted to stop a runner going full bore he’d step in toward the line maybe one pace about mid coach’s box or stay in the coach’s box about 18 feet from the bag. And no were does it say he got out of the box, even with one foot.

But this is all how we read the play and the players. The point of the drill was to make us think and for me it worked. I see that in this play it is as the rule is written “in the judgement of the umpire”. And folks we all ain’t gonna see the same thing the same way. Be it on the field or in writing. So as Carl said.

Originally posted by Carl Childress


* OBR 7.09(i) In the judgement of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.



Here's what you're confusing: A runner rounds third and crashes into his coach in the coaching box. That's nothing but an accident. Coach's interference with a runner must be intentional.

But:

A coach stations himself in such a way as to prevent the runner from heading for an out at the plate: That is clearly intentional and obviously interference. [/B]

“In the judgement of the umpire”



rex