Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Armadillo_Blue
Dan, One could argue that his moving to block the base bath was a physical act vs. a verbal act. Therefore he was physically assisting without actually touching.
I can see both sides of the argument, but didn't know what info was out there that I just don't have or know about.
|
Interesting, and I can see both sides too, I suppose. So here's this: What if the coach does the exact same thing, with a runner about to/in the process of rounding 3B wide - while still in the coach's box? A very wide turn/path will often take a runner through the home plate-most corner/end of the coach's box. Coach is still still intentionally getting in the base path, in your opinion. Or what if said coach completely lacks the ability to give verbal instructions? (I've had one.) I think I'd be tempted to say to complaining coach, "If you're not physically interfering with the play, coach, I'm going to allow you the same opportunity to coach your runners."
To take it a step further, it seems semantic, once you go beyond the requirement of physical assistance being derived from contact, to argue what does and doesn't constitute interfering with the play. Pointing to a base and putting a hand up is an act of physical assistance that can affect a play.
In my mind, it comes down to what a coach can and can't do outside the coach's box while the ball is in play in OBR. If signaling to a base runner is one of them, as is suggested by the following exerpt from Armadillo and SD Steve's posts above: "It is also common practice for a coach who has a play at his base to leave the coach’s box to signal the player to slide, advance or return to a base. This may be allowed if the coach does not interfere with the play in any manner," and since the case play supplied above involved actual contact with coach (and I'm guessing that every single case play would in cases of runner assistance, if dug up), I don't have a violation here.