[QUOTE]
Originally posted by DG
[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by ManInBlue
Quote:
Originally posted by DG
Quote:
Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
But the runner was protected BY RULE to third, which he made safely. As Roland points out, there's not enough information to determine whether the runner should be protected by umpire judgment to home.
Thus, my final answer: C. When he made his protected base, he advanced at his own risk. During that advance, however short it was, the coach interfered. Delayed dead ball (allowing the defense to play on the batter-runner) followed by an out.
|
Let's assume for the sake of continuing this discussion, that the umpire instantly recognized a situation where the obstructed runner should be awarded home, no question about it, based on the 3B man's obstruction, position of the ball, etc. Shortly after making this decision, the runner trips on 3B and is helped to his feet by the 3B coach. What do we have now? I have my answer ready.
|
Is he helped to his feet, or helped in the direction of home? I see this as two seperate situations.
First, there is the obligation to run the bases correctly, even on an award. (Award 1B to 3B, missed 2B can get an out on appeal) Second, is the coach assisting him in running the bases?
Coach assistance - OUT. Coach just picks the kid up - Award home and keep playing. JMO
|
Is the coach assisting him running the bases by helping him to his feet? Are you kidding me?
|
No, I'm not, actually. Although I argue that the HR situation doesn't have enough similarities to this play to be used as comparison, in this case I will use it. The coach can pick a kid up that trips over a base while "being awarded" his four bases on a HR. That's legal, so I see the same type of situation unfolding in your hypothetical situation. Picking him up and helping him advance have been differentiated in the rules during the award.
So, no, I'm not kidding you. Please feel free to offer a rebuttal. You posted a hypothetical situation. I posted a question that could arise in the situation. I guess I could be playing the part of the Devil's Advocate here. But I see that the question has some relevence.
I mean no offense by the following statement, but...You seem to be a well versed official. You're responses that I've seen make valid points. I would hope that "Are you kidding me?" isn't the best reply to this that you have. I would expect more from someone like you. I would expect a thorough explaination of why you think this is such a ridiculous question. I'm sure I have just thoroughly pissed you off. So, I await the barrage that is coming.