Interp of the Week - ANSWER

[Jim Porter]

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.

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.

RULING: 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:

Case Play from Jim Evans Official Baseball Rules Annotated:

PLAY: Runner on 1st. The batter smacks a line drive base hit into the gap in left center. The runner flies around 2nd and is determined to score on the play. The 3rd base coach is pointing for the runner to stop at 3rd. Seeing the runner is not going to stop, the coach gets in the runner's path home and is run over by his charging player. Both fall to the ground. The runner gets up and barely gets back to the base ahead of a tag. What's the call?

RULING: The coach's action should be considered physically assisting. He probably prevented his player from being thrown out at home. However, the runner is called out for his coach's actions. The B-R returns to the base last touched at the time of the collision.

Jim Evans Official Baseball Rules Annotated

7.09(i) Professional Interpretation: When a play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire should call "Time" and enforce the penalty. The runner is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference (assistance).

If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible. It is also consistent with other enforcement principles in the Official Baseball Rules in which you have a "delayed dead ball": 7.06(b) - Obstruction with no play being made on the obstructed runner; and 7.08(h) - Runner declared out for passing a preceding runner.

[Whowefoolin]

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

[Jim Porter]

Max,

I know it doesn't seem 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.

[rex]

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

[Rog]

.....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!

Originally posted by Jim Porter
Max,

I know it doesn't seem 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.

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

[Whowefoolin]

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rog
.....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.....

Rog:

Try this one:

Play: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!" Ruling: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 physical contact 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.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by Rog
.....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.

Rog,

The coach in my situation clearly 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 anything 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.

[Jim Porter]

Originally posted by rex
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

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

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.

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

The runner flies around 2nd and is determined to score on the play. The 3rd base coach is pointing for the runner to stop at 3rd. Seeing the runner is not going to stop, the coach gets in the runner's path home and is run over by his charging player.

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 I 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)

[Rog]

.....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)

Originally posted by Jim Porter

Rog,

The coach in my situation clearly 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 anything 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.

[JJ]

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.

[Ump20]

Originally posted by Rog
.....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)

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

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Rog
.....still not convienced, perhaps because of the situation more than the rules.

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

[Rog]

.....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.....

Originally posted by Carl Childress

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

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Rog
.....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.....

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]