Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dash_riprock
How about this angle - the shove by the coach was not assistance since the runner did not benefit from it and the defense was not disadvantaged by it. Contact by a coach does not, by itself, constitute assistance. It is not INT if a coach "high-fives" the B/R on a home run trot, but it sure is if he pulls him back to touch a missed base (unless the B/R is Mark McGwire). I think you will agree that the alleged INT had absolutely no effect on this play. How was the runner assisted?
Take this a step further, and have the B/R advance to 2nd after being shoved off the base. NOW I can see enforcing the INT, but it still results in ignoring the OBS. It still bothers me a little (because the B/R would be called out for being assisted to a base which he would have been awarded for the OBS), but just a little.
|
I could buy this logic. It seems there is enough leeway in 7.09h to allow the ignoring of the contact.
The rule states. "In the judgment 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."
In this specific instance, the runner acquired 1st base on his own, without any assistance by the coach. The coach's contact was a push toward the next base. At the end of the play, the runner was still on first and, from what can be seen, the shove toward 2nd base did not influence the play in any way. I would argue the coach did not assist the runner "in returning to or leaving... first base".
Had the coaches contact been a pull rather than a push, I would definitely call the assistance regardless of the obstruction. Had the push and resulting aborted break toward 2nd resulted in any further action, I would very likely call the assistance.
Are Dash and I too far out on the limb?