Let's see what the rule says:

<blockquote>No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action. Penalty: The ball is dead at the end of playing action. (3-2-2 and Penalty)</blockquote>So, it's only illegal to assist a runner <i>while the ball is alive</i>. Am I reading the language correctly?

The reason I said "B" is that the description of the play led me to believe that the runner had home plate in mind when he was obstructed. If he was holding up at third and was obstructed by F5, he would easily still make it to third. The fact that he tripped over the base indicated that he was accelerating rather than slowing down. Still, there is no excuse for a coach to physically assist a baserunner.

The answer, if we are thinking along with the Fed rules gang, is probably "C". When they ask questions like these, the answer usually involves penalizing somebody, and coaches interference fits that pattern.

Is is considered playing action to touch all the bases? I'm willing to concede this point, because I have never seen it happen, but it seems different to assist a runner to his feet during a dead ball after tripping on the bag than grabbing him and forcing him back to tag a missed base.

God, help me, but I'm with Carl here.

Playing action is the same as live ball. This home run is a perfect example of it.

I am assuming that this is dealing with FED rules as you state that this is a "State" exam.

A. The obstruction balances out the interference. Let the play stand.
This isn't football, so off-setting penalties don't happen in baseball. It's one or the other.

B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.
Obstruction is a delayed dead ball so play continues to the end. In this case another violation occurred.

C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.
<font color=blue>This is my choice. We will protect the runner to 3rd on F5's obstruction. Once R2 touches 3rd the protection is over. Now R2 falls and the 3rd base coach pushes him toward home as R2 is rising. I would call the interference and when play ends, call R2 out on the coach's interference.</font>

D. Call the runner out and kill play immediately
Sorry but interference by a coach during live ball is a delayed dead ball.

Ossy: The assumption FED rules were in use wasn't necessary. Go back and read my post again.

Now: suppose that R2 was stealing on the base hit, and would have reached home easily on the base hit. The award should be home, right? In that instance, will you penalize the interference?

Bob Jenkins makes a strong point in reminding us that the runner must run the bases legally. I have no rebuttal to it.

The case seems to me to come down to this: both violations confer unfair advantages on the respective teams, and so both deserve to be called. We might pick one of the following principles:
1. The obstruction occurred first, so enforce it.
2. The coach's interference had no impact on the play and the obstruction did, so ignore the interference.
3. The Jenkins rule: runners must run bases legally at all times, whether protected or no, so enforce the interference.
4. Since two infractions occurred, balance them and enforce the the penalty for the more unfair one.

On my interpretation, 3 out of 4 of these principles point to enforcing the obstruction and ignoring the interference. But I worry that only one of them is correct...

It is also possible to enforce both: protect the runner from being put out by the defense, but call him out for the coach's interference. Best of both worlds?

I know I am late to the party, but I would vote for "C" as well. Nothing in the play implies that the runner should be protected to any base other than third. Protection ends at third. If the coach physically assists the runner during playing action, the runner is out at the end of the play.

Even if the runner is protected to home, I have an out via the Jenkins logic, you have to legally run the bases.

I want to go read the rule book now to get the exact phrases in them.

What about the fifth option? As I see the play, right or wrong - the runner is not running TO third. His intentions are to get home. My award seems to be the two base award to have him score.

True enough, even with a base award the bases have to be run correctly. However, in a normal 2 base award, say 1B to 3B, and R1 misses second, he's not out until the appeal.

Why can this not apply here? (e)? You award home, when the defense appeals the INT by the coach, call R2 out. Granted INT is not a normal appeal play.

I have to agree with the replies having the INT during a live ball sitch. So it may need to be enforced.

The home run verbage says nothing about pushing the runner toward home. There is no assistance in running the bases. The runner is simply helped to his feet. Also, the HR causes a dead ball. Playing action has ceased. If the coach drags him to the plate, we have another situation, that may be INT. However, if he is unable to continue, I believe the rules allow for another runner to complete the award. So why help him advance, just help him up.

I don't think the HR sitch and the sitch in the original post are comparable. Not enough to use it as justification for a ruling here. JMHO.

That's good practical advice, Peter, but not applicable to this thread. (And way too convenient of an out.) We were asked to rule on a set of specific given facts. In this situation even you SAW the interference. So, follow the rules established by the original poster and give us your ruling.

Why does every situation result in a "career killing play" in the beltline?

God, Peter, just call the freaking game and let the chips fall wherever they fall. Is it that important to be a "big dog" that you have to go into every game hoping things don't happen on your field?

But Peter said he would ignore the coach's interference. At least, he answered the question.

I didn't catch whether you thought obstruction or interference should be enforced.

Appeal a coach's interference play?? C'mon man....

I choose answer b, because....

The runner R2 clearly would have reached home absent the obstruction and trip. Otherwise the coach would not have pushed the runner toward home. I trust the coach's instincts, but not his restraint. I also trust Carl to not pose a trivial question, and if the runner is only awarded third, the answer is straightforward.

So the problem is that during one play, two infractions occur, and the indicated penalties are in direct conflict.

FED rules do not "protect" the runner to an advance base; instead the runner is awarded the advance base. The runner does have an obligation to touch the bases legally during an award, and this runner did. He has committed no infraction, rather the coach has interfered. Note that the FED definition of award states "...In actuality, it is the right to advance without a play being made that is awarded."

Compare the situation posed by the test question to a just walked B/R who trips while approaching first base. The base coach helps B/R get up. Is B/R out for coach interference?

I don't know the answer for either situation, but Carl wants an opinion. For the test question, I say the runner gets to keep his award because it precedes the interference.

Dave Reed

Pardon me, but where does it state that the obstruction caused him to trip and miss the base. That is exactly why I hate answering hypothetical questions. I envision F5 in the baseline awaiting a cut from deep left-center. He is fifteen feet from the bag when he steps back and collides with the runner, knocking him off stride.

Check it again...

"The runner from second is advancing on a hit when he is obstructed by the third baseman. The runner then trips over the third base and, as he rises, is pushed toward home by the head coach."

It says the obstruction occurs...one incident.
Then...a second incident.
Interference...a third incident.

The only thing that would make this worse is if Carl said that the guy missed second base earlier or if the third base coach was in a wheelchair (grin)!


Well...we're waiting! ~Judge Smails in Caddyshack