[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by thumpferee
No where did I see in the original post that the kick by the coach was INTENTIONAL. It says, was kicked.

I took it as though the throw was wild, B1 safe at first on the bad throw, coach trying to avoid and kicks the ball UNINTENTIONALLY out of play as it is rolling away from F3.

How can the perception that the coach interfered with the "thrown ball" while standing in foul territory(assuming that's where he was) on a throw by F6 to F3?

Example: R1 on 1st and F1 attempts to pick off R1. Ball gets by F3, R1 takes a couple steps toward second then starts back to 1st. The throw by F3 to F1 at 1st hits the base coach. INTERFERENCE. RUNNER OUT.

That's an example of a base coach interfering with a "thrown ball". In the case provided, I saw it as though the "thrown ball" hit the coach. Intentionally kicking the ball is another story. In that case I would agree with you.

You are correct, that rule says the runner is out, Not a dead ball as I stated. BUT, I did say NOT QUOTING. When I said the ball is Dead, I was refering to the situation that interference was the call and by rule 2.0 (d)(e) On any interference the ball is dead.

I have also checked your reference to 3.15. Again, Intentional comes into play. Where does it say the kick was INTENTIONAL in the original post.

Maybe a better explaination of the play would help.

Mr Thumpferee, there are several points that I must make with no disrespect intended:

1. A "kick" of the ball by the coach or any other person entitled to be on the playing field is automatically considered intentional, as the two Bob's correctly responded above. That was why I quoted OBR 3.15 Comment and Play. 3.15 Comment says:
   If, however, the person kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what the person's thought may have been.

2. Indeed you did say "NOT quoting", but it is customary even when paraphrasing a rule rather than quoting it to get the premise of the rule correct. There is NO mention of the ball being DEAD anywhere in that rule and your paraphrase explicitly said there was. An honest mistake? No problem. Everyone makes them, including me. See the following point 4 for confirmation.

3. OBR 2.00(d) is about spectator interference. There is NO OBR 2.00 (e). The comment at the end of OBR 2.00 following point (d) would normally be referenced as OBR 2.00 Interference, Comment or OBR 2.00 Interference, End Note. That comment is a misleading statement because the ball is NOT automatically dead on any interference. Unintentional interference by persons entitled to be on the playing field, including coaches, is one specific exception.

4. On coach's interference the ball usually remains ALIVE AND IN PLAY, if the interference was unintentional. [OBR 5.08] On coaches interference by assistance [OBR 7.09(i)] the ball also remains ALIVE AND IN PLAY. I reasoned that if the rules allowed a coach to kill play by intentionally interfering with a thrown ball then it would be quite likely for a coach at 3rd base to kill a possible triple play by knocking down the first throw to third base! That is why I made my interpretation that the ball also remains alive on coach's intentional interference. It seems I may have been quite wrong about that.
   
   The following interpretation of 5.08 and explanatory play from Evans would seem to disagree with my earlier interpretation:
   Though Rule 5.08 states a penalty in rather vague terms ...”the runner is out”... it becomes the umpire’s responsibility to determine which runner in the case of multiple runners. In the case of interference interpreted as intentional by the umpire, he shall rule the ball dead and call “out” the runner who would have most benefited by the coach’s actions. (See situations below.)
   
   PLAY: Runner on 2nd. The batter’s ground ball is fielded to 1st but gets by the first baseman. The coach falls to the ground and covers the ball as the runner from 2nd scores and the BR advances to 2nd.
   
   RULING: This is most likely intentional interference by the coach. The ball should be ruled dead, the lead runner declared out, and the BR returned to 1st.

Despite Evans I would be inclined to leave the ball ALIVE AND IN PLAY, even on intentional interference by the coach, IF there was any possibility that the defense might still have a play on other runners. That's how the situation is properly handled with coach's assistance [OBR 7.09(i)], the ball only being ruled dead if the defense attempts to play on the assisted runner after the interference, so it's not much of a stretch to go that way for intentional interference with a thrown ball, too. Besides, my copy of Evans is getting positively ancient, so there may even have been a more recent interpretation that supports keeping the ball alive in this case. Anyone have a line on such a later interpretation?

Cheers


[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 2nd, 2003 at 07:57 PM]