|
|||
How much is too much?
Quote:
Quote:
What the runner thinks is also irrelevant, beyond whether or not he was actually going to stop or return of his own volition. If the runner was going to stop or return on his own, then I would certainly agree that the collision was not "assistance", despite the coach's intentions. This runner was expressly NOT going to stop or return by his own choice. The collision with the coach made his mind up for him. That's "assistance" by physical contact. Cheers, |
|
|||
a worthy effort indeed.....
Well, I have to admit I've never seen this happen. But then, I've not seen alot of things.
Something also tells me that the meat hooks will be working overtime on this call, if it were made. Fire up the barbie cause Daddy's on his way home early! One side note for you Warren, while you sit there downunder in the brillant sun and warmth. We just got dumped on with about a foot and a half of snow in two hours. How about I FedEx some yourway????? Quote:
|
|
|||
I've never seen this play, yet
Quote:
Quote:
I agree with Rog who earlier said this might be a $hithouse when you make the call. It would be an unusual call on an unusual play. Warren's description of the "principle" involved is why I think you have to call it if you see it. I'm just wondering what you mean by ...out of the box by much more than is normally tolerated. Since we don't call the coach out of the box except by "request" of the opposing coach [exception the coach is much too close to the batter putting himself in what I determine to be harm's way] are we not saying that the coach is not where "you would typically expect him" rather than the distance away from the so called coach's box? I understand the play more fully now and agree with the decision. No then again, can we go to the videotape? Jim Simms/NYC P.S. We are bracing for 12-24 inches tomorrow night. Anyone no the weather report for Sydney? |
|
|||
Re: I've never seen this play, yet
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ump20
Quote:
What the rule book talks about is a coach who stands with one foot in and one foot out of the box. That's tradition. That is what the case book comment covers: Coaches can stand like that until one side complains, then the umpire will enforce it for both sides. (PBUC 1.14) Coaches also traditionally are allowed to leave the box to signal a runner to stop or slide. But that "trip" cannot look like a runner heading home. For example, any coach who runs from his box toward the plate with his back to the outfield would create an interference call for violation of 7.09(j). That's the time Warren is speaking of, when we would "typically expect him" to be out of the box BUT NOT IN THE RUNNER'S PATH. People keep saying this is an unusual play. There have been many instances of coach/runner collisions in the major leagues -- some resulting in interference calls, some being classified as collisions. I cannot understand why umpires think calling the coach out for standing in the base path would create a "firestorm" of protest. Where I umpired baseball, ignoring that would be cause for a police escort. I guess we just take our baseball more serious down South. |
|
|||
Re: a worthy effort indeed.....
Quote:
He said, "But I wasn't helping him." I said, "You knew what you were doing coach [with a wink]." He said, "Yup [with a sheepish grin on his face]." Your earlier observation regarding the cutoff and where the ball might be when this occurs also seemed to be accurate. The third baseman had the ball and the runner would have been a sitting duck anyway. Maybe that also is why there wasn't much controversy on the call. You COULD hear the head coach chewing butt about "picking up the stop signal sooner" as the runner entered the bench. |
|
|||
Don't Get Territorial
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
Quote:
I don't think the seriousness of the game is dependent upon what part of the nation you're from! Matter of fact isn't Texas the team that just agreed to pay a shortstop $250 million? That is pretty serious. All kidding aside I think the coach interfering with a runner in this manner is not too common. I agree that doesnt mean you don't call what you see. After all, the way the play was described we had a dead duck at the plate absent the coach's actions. I also don't think the possibility of a brouhaha isn't the reason to shy away from your responsibilities. By the way we're pretty serious about our ball up North. We just don't have as many days to get the games in. |
|
|||
Re: I've never seen this play, yet
Quote:
1. The coach's box is 20' x 10', 15' back from the foul line and starts at a point directly opposite the base. 2. The casebook comment for OBR 4.05 says that coaches can be tolerated with one foot out of the box, standing astride or "slightly" out of the box. Given a normal stride, that probably adds about 2-3 feet, up to 5' at most, to the distance toward home from 3rd base, or toward the foul line, for example. So on the occasions where, by rule, we "may" (not "must") ignore the coach's standing with one foot outside the box until the other coach complains, the coach can be as much as 22'-25' "down the line" toward home plate, and as close as 10' to the foul line. True? Now, as Carl points out, tradition has umpires allowing coaches even more latitude when signalling to a runner. That usually means a pace or two at most. Therefore a coach could reasonably be as much as 30' "down the line", or 1/3rd the distance toward home plate. All of this is tolerated. No further encroachment on the foul line should be permitted, even for signalling. What would NOT be tolerated is a coach (a) running toward home plate with his back to the outfield and mimicing a runner, (b) being more than 1/3rd the way down the base line toward home plate, (c) being any distance up the base line past 3rd base, (d) being any closer to the foul line than about 10', (e) making noises or signals in the direction of the pitcher during a pitch in order to induce a balk, and (f) physically placing himself in the path of a base runner. The coach in Jim Porter's scenario was well beyond the pale by virtue of extending (b), (d) and (f). He "moved down the line", which I took to be more than expected for merely signalling, and he deliberately put himself physically "in the runner's basepath". He deliberately induced the collision and he did it by being somewhere much further out of bounds than would normally be expected if signalling were his only goal. That's what I meant by "...out of the box by much more than is normally tolerated". When that happens during live action, there is nothing the umpire can do to prevent what follows. The die has been cast, and if the circumstances favour the offensive runner in either acquiring or re-acquiring a base, the interference penalty from OBR 7.09(i) should apply. This deliberate offense could also get the base coach ejected under OBR 4.05 Penalty. Even if the coach remained within the normal bounds, being outside the box would not be tolerated in any circumstances where it also interfered with the play in any manner. In short any time a coach is out of the box and in so doing collides with his own runner in circumstances where a play is being made on that runner, he has interfered with the play and a penalty could follow - even if the effect of that interference is detrimental to his own runner. Cheers, [Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 10:43 PM] |
|
|||
Re: a worthy effort indeed.....
Quote:
I don't need no visit from FedEx, especially if snow is what they're carrying. Who needs a soggy box? Temperatures here are in the low 80's F, with humidity in the low 70's. I hope it stays there or gets even cooler come Tuesday, because I'll be umpiring in the NSW Schools State Championships series in Sydney all next week. Cheers, |
|
|||
Re: Re: I've never seen this play, yet
Quote:
Uh, a good, L O N G job, Warren. |
|
|||
On being concise...
Quote:
I wanted to make the point about appropriate distance for being out of the box, seeing that Jim Simms was suggesting it was position more than distance that was the deciding issue. I also wanted to cover the possibility of the coach being ejected, which we didn't really address under the original interpretation either. I'll work harder on my bullet points and being more concise in my use of language in future, Carl. Cheers, |
|
|||
quote:
PLAY: Runner on first. B1 laces a liner to the gap in right-center. R1 rounds second, is going full speed for third, and looks as though he's going for home. The third base coach moves down the line, in the runner's projected path, with his hands raised over his head. R1 rounds third and crashes into his coach, both of them falling to the ground. In the meantime, the BR had rounded first and was steaming toward second. He reached second and rounded it a bit too far. F9 had retrieved the ball, and fired his relay to F4. F4 turned, saw R1 and his coach collide and fall to the ground, and then fired to second just in time for F6 to tag out the BR diving back to second. F6 turns and fires to F5. R1 scrambles back to third just in time before F5's tag touches him on his back. Theres some things about this play that has gotten bizarre. We got a runner going full speed FOR third A ball in right- center. Now then this runner started out at first and now hes on his way to third and looking home. That tells me the ball is way in the hell out there. The ball being thrown to f4 supports this theory. F9 didnt go for third via f6 that would be in a better line from right center field. Nor did he go to F2 with F1 being the cut off. Now then this runner is not making right angle turns, so hes swinging way out. Why because hes going full speed. Its tuff to make a 90 degree turn when your running full bore. Then we get this base coach moving down the line (Ill bet hes watching the ball and what the fielders are doing) then he sees F9 cock back and fire the ball. Now hes football referee and throws his hands up. This base coach is in the runners projected path. When they make contact it aint projected anymore, it is his base path. All this time we have a B/R who is now at and past second and as described on his way back. Isnt second closer to the ball than third. Thats why F4 threw to F6, not because he saw R1 crash with his coach. The projected base path phrase is written in only as a means to confirm for the sake of the ruling the base coach did bad. For the sake of the play the runners base path will cut through the coachs box. Remember the coach was moving before the runner GOT to third. Now the hell would the coach know the runners intent to go home when he hadnt reached third yet. If he was gonna BLOCK the runner he sure as hell wont have moved down the line. Buy my figuring if he wanted to stop a runner going full bore hed step in toward the line maybe one pace about mid coachs box or stay in the coachs box about 18 feet from the bag. And no were does it say he got out of the box, even with one foot. But this is all how we read the play and the players. The point of the drill was to make us think and for me it worked. I see that in this play it is as the rule is written in the judgement of the umpire. And folks we all aint gonna see the same thing the same way. Be it on the field or in writing. So as Carl said. Quote:
In the judgement of the umpire rex
__________________
When you're green you'll grow When you're ripe you'll rot |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
What if there is no contact?
Quote:
|
|
|||
Re: What if there is no contact?
Quote:
OTOH, if the coach leaves his box and deliberately interferes with play, then OBR 4.05 Penalty might be more appropriate. Cheers, |
|
|||
Yep... bizarre.
Quote:
Quote:
Cheers, |
Bookmarks |
|
|