We had only one winner in this first-ever Interp of the Week - - Umpyre007.

Partial credit goes to Buster Light, Rich Ives, and Pete Booth.

<b>RULING</b>: Double play. R1 is out for coacher's interference and the BR is out on the play.

Even though the coacher's actions seemed to have been a hindrance to R1, what he did does indeed qualify as physically assisting the runner. He kept the runner from probably being thrown out at home plate. R1 should have been declared out at the time of the infraction, and play kept alive. Since play is allowed to continue, the defense's out achieved on the BR is allowed to stand.

Here are the interpretations from which I developed this play:

Jim,

The base coach does not seem like he is assisting the baserunner by being in the way and having the baserunner run into him.

I would think "assisting" the base-runner would be to intentionally do something to hinder/stop/prohibit.

What would happen if the base coach was right next to the base waving for the runner to "get down", but the base runner runs through the sign, and runs smack dab into the coach. Interference?

Coach was having base-runner intentionally run into him. Does it matter what type of body language the base coach has going at the time of collision?

IMO, R1 safe. Incidental contact. Nothing intentional.

Max

Max,

I know it doesn't <b>seem</b> like he assisted the runner, but he did.

Look at the elements involved - - the coach moved down the line, into the runner's projected path, to stop his player from advancing home. Did he physically assist the runner to achieve this goal? Did he physically keep the runner from advancing to home?

Sure he did. And he did it by moving down the line and into the runner's projected path. The coach wanted his runner to stop at third. By getting in the way, he physically assisted the runner. He kept the runner from being thrown out at home, and he got him to return to third safely.

One thing that this case play from Jim Evans taught me is that there's more than one way for a base coach to physically assist a runner. A coach doesn't necessarily have to reach out and grab or push a runner for him to be guilty of physically assisting him.

It is not only the actions of the coach that we should consider with coach's interference. It is the coach's actions coupled with the results of the coach's actions on the runner, and the results of both of these on the play.

Jim,

I got to disagree with you, Not on the rule or the inturp. It’s as you have said to me “It’s a matter of semantics” The play you called and the play Jim Evans called, are different but the same. There is enough difference in the wording on the exact same play that it makes two different plays. I just don't READ yours the 7.09(i) way.

JMO


rex

Sorry Jim, but.....
 

.....I've got to humble disagree with you on this one. I have R1 safe at 3rd.
Why, because according to:
"J/R - Part III #13 Offensive Interference, Section IV:
[It is interference if a coach]
(3) physically assists a runner's advance or return to a base.
Penalty: such runner is out but the ball remains live. 7.09i

* OBR 7.09(i) In the judgement 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.

Both sections seem clear in the aspect of:
physically assists a runner's advance, returning or leaving.

This coach it seems just stupidly stood on the tracks
waving his lantern at a fast moving train..... :-}

I will go so far as to say, this is one you'd have to see to make a final decision on!












[Edited by Rog on Mar 2nd, 2001 at 11:54 PM]

I learned something tonight. It was 9:43PM and happened to surf on this question. But I learned something that I will take with me to the games.

Thanx Jim. See, even when you're bored and not looking to learn....you learn!

Baseball starts in exactly 11 hours 17 minutes. Adult spring ball. Not much, but it will do. Jim, I will be eyeing that third base coach tomorrow!

Max

Re: Sorry Jim, but.....
 

Rog:

Try this one:

<b>Play:</b>R3 retouches on a fly to right. At the moment the fly is touched in the outfield, the coach taps his runner on the helmet and says: "Go!" <b>Ruling:</b>The umpire will call out R3.

This rule has gone through two cycles, only to wind up where it was 100 years ago!

In the early days when the coach assisted the runner by getting in his way or touching him or patting him, it was considered interference. Then the interpretation changed, such that he actually had to "help" a runner leave or return to the base: Physical assistance, in other words. But we've come back to the original interpretation. That is, any <b>physical contact</b> by the coach that helps the runner is interference.

Here's what you're confusing: A runner rounds third and crashes into his coach in the coaching box. That's nothing but an accident. Coach's interference with a runner must be intentional.

But:

A coach stations himself in such a way as to prevent the runner from heading for an out at the plate: That is clearly intentional and obviously interference.

Re: Sorry Jim, but.....
 

Rog,

The coach in my situation <b>clearly</b> assisted the runner in returning to third base. The runner wasn't going to return. Instead, the runner was going on home where he probably would have been put out.

But the coach, by physically touching him (can't get much more of a physical touch than a collision,) stopped him from continuing home and getting put out. The coach's actions prevented the runner from being put out at home, and as a result, the runner safely returned to third with the coach's assistance.

I know what you think assistance means. We get the image of a Boy Scout aiding an old person across a busy street, or we think of Welfare and other public assistance programs. But that's not what it means here. Here, it means <b>anything</b> which aids or helps the runner, or gives him an advantage.

I also believe you may be misinterpreting the part about "returning to or leaving" third base. That part of the rule is there to ensure that an umpire understands that, not only can a coach not aid, help, or lend advantage to a runner in advancing, he cannot help him in returning either. It implies nothing further than that. Think about it, a runner can only be returning to or leaving third base - - there are no other possibilities.

Here's what the runner and coach do in my play:

Here's what the runner and coach do in Jim Evans' play:

Similarities:

• Both runners intend to score
• Both coaches at least signaled their desire for the runner to stop (one points the other raises his hands)
• Both coaches move out of the box and into the runner's projected path

Differences:

• Evans' coach expressed his desire for the runner to stop before moving out of the box and into the runner's path
• Evans includes what the coach sees the runner doing

Now, neither of those differences change the outcome of the ruling here.

As far as the first difference - - it does not matter when the coach demonstrates that he wants the runner to stop, whether it be before or after entering the runner's path. All that is important is that it is apparent to the umpire that the coach did indeed want the runner to stop.

As far as the second difference, I cannot ever say what a coach actually sees, can you? All I know is what <b>I</b> see. And I quite clearly included in my play that the runner looked like he was going home - - just like a coach would see that it looks like his runner is going home. Whether you see it, or the coach sees it, is irrelevant. All that is important here is that it looked like the runner wasn't going to stop.

Just to summarize, the important elements in the play that needed to be established were:

• The coach somehow expressed, either verbally or by demonstration, that he desired the runner to stop at third.
• The runner demonstrated that he was not going to stop at third.
• The coach moved out of his box and into the runner's projected path.
• The collision kept the runner from possibly being put out at home.

So, rex, are you starting to read my play a little more the "7.09(i)-way" now? (grin)

the problem with visiting to Missouri!
 

.....still not convienced, perhaps because of the situation more than the rules.
Coaches being out of the box and down the lines is an age old issue. One that is ignored unless an opposing coach bellyaches.
In your situation the coach came out of the box and down the line sometime before R1 ever reached 3rd, much less turned the corner (and headed for home?, we don't know this for a fact, perhaps R1 would have just turned and stopped).
Because of where the coach set up down the line it seems more likely that he was in fact just trying to get R1 to hold up at 3rd base.
The coach made no overt act of stopping R3, he just stood there, with his hands in the air and got plowed into. Sorry, but I just don't see any coach just standing there and - taking one for the team. Not without at least putting his hands done in an attempt to protect himself, or stymie the force of R3. (jmo, and it is a judgement call after all)

I agree that merely running into the coach, even if he is out of the box, probably is not interference. First time I read the situation I did not see "with his hands raised above his head". That probably DOES make it interference. Also makes for a pretty stupid coach - gives a whole new meaning to "taking one for the team". Also, I don't know of any coach in 20 years of umping that would think quickly enough to throw his body into the path of a player "steaming around third". Might grab him, or use an outstretched arm. But sacrifice his body? That's what makes the situation of NO interference on a collision with the third base coach the more likely of the actual events.

Running Over Boy Scouts
 

Actually I didn't read the play very carefully and didn't concentrate on Jim Porter's answer. I've got to say I lean with Rog on this play. A coach who has to prevent a runner from attempting to score on such a play by merely being in his path lends little meaningful assistance if a collision results in which both player and coach fall to the ground. With the proper cutoff that runner should still be thrown out at 3B.

I think you could rule the coach interfered especially if the coach alters his natural stance. However, if the player with his head down rounds the bag rather than cutting it and collides with his coach I think that may be enough punishment. If you see the coach adjust his position to cause the collision you could call it. I'd say that would be tough if the coach never raises his hands even to protect himself. Some runners "make up their minds" absent what a coach might be saying or signaling. Jim Simms/NYC

Re: the problem with visiting to Missouri!
 

Ok, then, I give up. I'll send you Jim Evans' email address, and you argue with him. It's his ruling, you understand.

Re: Re: the problem with visiting to Missouri!
 

.....I'm not doubting your statements one bit.
But, in this particular situation, absent the coach so much as making even a little finch to "Stop" R3, to make a call of interference I think would create a proverbial "$hithouse".
Along with the fact that this is a judgement call, it seems the No-Call would be the proper one (jmo).
Maybe I had a relative who fought at the Alamo, and the diehard in me is genetic.....

Let me try...
 

Rog,

Surely you can admit that there is a difference between a coach merely signalling his runner to STOP (legal), and physically ensuring that he MUST stop (illegal)?

In this case, that difference is represented by the coach performing one single act - placing himself directly in the runner's path and physically preventing the runner's advance. Whether the runner plows into him, or merely bumps into him in pulling up where he hadn't intended to stop, we now have a "physical assistance" from that coach. I might even go a step further than Evans, and claim that causing his runner to break stride by deliberately, physically standing in his base path is also "physical assistance", as distinguished from merely signalling the runner to return, but that's another issue. Evans' point is that we had physical contact and the runner benefited from that contact by returning safely to a base.

The coach's action is illegal in two ways; (a) because he is out of the box, and by much more than is normally tolerated, and (b) because of what his action was intended to achieve - the physical prevention of his runner being thrown out at home AND the safe return of his runner to 3rd.

The end result is that the runner was illegally physically assisted to return to 3rd base safely. It is the "end result" that matters in coach's interference.

Remember that such plays are designed to show a principle. Often they can represent unlikely acts, but the principle remains unchanged. The principle involved in coach's assistance is that a base coach may not physically assist his runner to acquire or reacquire a base. Evans' play shows that this physical assistance does NOT require that contact only be from the coach's hands on the runner. The whole body can be used for physical assistance, too! This runner was physically assisted to reacquire 3rd base, even when he clearly hadn't wanted to do so, despite the fact the coach did not place his hands on the runner. That's interference.

Cheers,

[Edited by Warren Willson on Mar 3rd, 2001 at 04:57 PM]

How much is too much?
 

Agreed. That's not the case here, however. The illegal contact resulted in the runner being saved from an out at home, where a play was being made on him, and facilitated a safe return to 3rd base ahead of a second play made on him there. The runner benefited from the contact with the coach. Does the fact that both runner and coach end up on the ground prevent this being classified as "assistance"? Clearly NOT if it saves an out on the runner and ends with the runner returning safely to 3rd base!

Jim, how MUCH does the coach have to alter "his natural stance"? In this case, the coach moved out of the box, down the line, AND physically placed his whole body in the runner's path! That's a one hell of an alteration I'd say! (grin) It's certainly "(adjusting) his position to cause the collision".

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 <i>was</i> 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?????

I've never seen this play, yet
 

[/B][/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:

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?

Jim:

What the rule book talks about is a coach who <b>stands</b> with one foot in and one foot out of the box. That's tradition. <b>That</b> is what the case book comment covers: Coaches can <b>stand</b> 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 <b>with his back to the outfield</b> 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.....
 

By sheer coincidence I had this call today in a varsity game, at the time tied 0-0. Coach's interference was called immediately and there really wasn't much beef from the coach.

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. :D

Don't Get Territorial
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by Ump20 Quote: 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? Jim: What the rule book talks about is a coach who <b>stands</b> with one foot in and one foot out of the box. That's tradition. <b>That</b> is what the case book comment covers: Coaches can <b>stand</b> 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 <b>with his back to the outfield</b> 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.

Carl,
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 doesn’t 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
 

It is important to offer a few salient facts before I try to explain what I meant by that phrase. Carl's explanation was certainly correct, but perhaps didn't go far enough. Then again perhaps mine will go too far. ;)

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.....
 

If "Daddy" is the base coach, that's a distinct possibility even without any debate! (see my post to Jim Simms for my reasons why that is possible).

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. :p

Cheers,

Re: Re: I've never seen this play, yet
 

Yes, like I said: He stand with one foot outside the box, leave the box to signal a runner to stop or go back, but he can't pretend to be a runner or get in the way of the runner.

Uh, a good, L O N G job, Warren.

On being concise...
 

Well I did caution that "perhaps mine will go too far". :D

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.


There’s 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 he’s 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 didn’t 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 he’s swinging way out. Why because he’s going full speed. It’s tuff to make a 90 degree turn when your running full bore.

Then we get this base coach moving down the line (I’ll bet he’s watching the ball and what the fielders are doing) then he sees F9 cock back and fire the ball. Now he’s football referee and throws his hands up. This base coach is in the runners “projected path”. When they make contact it ain’t 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. Isn’t second closer to the ball than third. That’s 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 coach’s box. Remember the coach was moving before the runner GOT to third. Now the hell would the coach know the runner’s intent to go home when he hadn’t reached third yet. If he was gonna “BLOCK” the runner he sure as hell won’t have moved “down the line”. Buy my figuring if he wanted to stop a runner going full bore he’d step in toward the line maybe one pace about mid coach’s box or stay in the coach’s 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 ain’t gonna see the same thing the same way. Be it on the field or in writing. So as Carl said.





“In the judgement of the umpire”



rex

The problem I have in “seeing” this play is that 90% of the fields I umpire on do not have the coach’s box physically drawn. I’m sometimes happy with foul lines especially when they extend into the outfield. A batter’s box is just a way to get chalk on my freshly polished plate shoes. Even without “seeing” a box I can envision a savvy coach knowing he can’t physically assist his runner deciding to casually set up a roadblock. Perhaps this play is more common than a ball hitting a bird in flight although we do have an awful lot of Canadian geese that never migrate anymore. No wonder so few outfielders are willing to dive for balls anymore.

What if there is no contact?
 

If base coach intentionally blocks the basepath between third and home but bubba R3 stops before contact, is the movement of the coach sufficient "physical assistance" so that it is still interference? The coach's actions were identical and deliberate. I assumed that there also needs to be physical contact. (e.g., it's ok for a basecoach to yell "go" on a caught fly ball, but not to tap the baserunner's helmet.)

Re: What if there is no contact?
 

OBR 7.08(i) says that the physical assistance must be given "...by touching or holding the runner". That seems to clearly indicate physical contact is required. Like you, however, I can envisage a situation where the coach physically assists his runner to stop by forcing a change of direction, for example. Unfortunately, the rule doesn't allow that possibilty in its wording and I have seen no interpretation that extends the assistance beyond actual contact.

OTOH, if the coach leaves his box and deliberately interferes with play, then OBR 4.05 Penalty might be more appropriate.

Cheers,

Yep... bizarre.
 

You are correct in suggesting that some things about the discussion of this play have gotten "bizarre". I might even have been responsible for some of that. I read the original play and the Evans play and came up with a mental composite play. Somehow I managed to envisage that a play was being made on R1 at some point prior to the attempted tag by F5. Perhaps I saw F4 acting as the cutoff for F9's throw to the plate. Clearly that was not the case from the play reprinted above. All the same, I think the reference to F4 noting R1 was down, and the fact he subsequently did not play on the lead runner at home, probably indicates that this collision caused F4 to change his play and not throw home for the lead runner but instead to try for the BR at 2nd. The clear inference is that F4 would easily have had R1 at home if the runner had not collided with the coach. Heck, they almost had him at 3rd after they got the BR at 2nd.

Bottom line? You are absolutely correct. It is umpire's judgement on the play. Sorry, if my overactive imagination introduced some confusion into the discussion where you are concerned. It was purely unintentional, I assure you. :)

Cheers,

What's the box got to do with it?
 

It seems we are mixing two totally separate rules each of which has its own penalty.

7.09(i) says it is interference for the coach to "physically assist the runner." The coach does not have to be out of his box to violate this rule. Would you (now that you know the Evan's interpretation.) call out R1 for interference even if he "road blocked" R1 while in the coach's box? I would. The penalty for violating this rule is R1 is out.

Rule 4.05, on the other hand, has its own penalty. "An offending base coach shall be removed from the base coach's box." (Which I will note is ironic since he was not there to begin with, but I digress). The appropriate latitude we should give coaches has been noted. I agree.

I am not certain, however, his position out of the box does much in terms of helping us decide whether he interfered. If he has gone too far (pun intended), sit him down. If he “physically assists,” call the runner out. If he does both, we should do both. What the heck; if you call the runner out, you are going to have to eject him anyway.

Mark

Mark,

I agree with you on one thing. The box has nothing to do with why this is coach's interference.

In fact, in Jim Evans' play, he doesn't even mention whether his coach is in the box or out. The coach could conceivably be <b>in</b> the box, and still interfere in this manner.