Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigUmp56
How did the coach directly affect the play any differently than had he issued instructions from just outside the dugout.
Tim.
|
Why are people only reading pieces of what I wrote independently of each other. Good grief.
At risk of repeating myself, since a couple of you refuse to read what I said ...
If the umpire did not feel the coach being on the field to issue his instructions during a live ball had any affect on the play, then of course the only penalty should be ejection. Nothing else.
But surely each of you can envision a case where having a coach in the middle of a play during a live ball would create an advantage for the defense. If you cannot, ignore the rest of the post. (If there's no advantage to having a coach on the field ... why don't we just allow them out there all the time?!?!)
It's obvious to me that the umpire in the OP DID feel that the coach created an advantage for his team by being able to be on the field to issue instructions, and directly affected the play. If that's the case, then your only remedy to fix this advantage is to use 9.01c - and in this case I don't think the O-Poster was out of line in his solution (with the exception being his use of the term "obstruction.")