Obstruction or interference

[SanDiegoSteve]

WWTB,

Also check out the 2005 Fed. Case Book page 25, 3-2-2 SITUATION A. When the ball is dead, the coach can assist.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

We are not talking about a coach assisting, we are talking about a coach preventing.

According to your dead ball logic, if a batter hits a home run and collapses at the plate, his coach can drag him around the bases. Yep, that's the spirit of the game I remember learning in umpire school.

We aren't talking about a coach helping a kid retouch a missed base or even the plate, we are discussing a coach physically preventing one of his athletes from passing a runner. This is not a nothing. He has halted the continuation of play, albeit a dead ball, but we make many things happen during dead ball situations. This one is not tolerable.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I said show me the rule, and as of right now, you haven't.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

No, you didn't...you quoted the wrong rule and I pointed that out. Did you notice no one else is supporting your thoughts? The coach physically prevented a runner from committing a baserunning infraction - most of us understand that to be illegal.

[Kaliix]

WWTB,
I am inclined to agree with your interpretation of the coach preventing passing by physically stopping it from happening.

However, the rule doesn't support it, at least from what I have found in the rule book.

Rule 3-2-2 states: "No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action."

Playing action is defined in Rule 2-29-1 as (refering to the word play), "The term is also used to denote a unit of action which begins when a pitcher has the ball in his possession in pitching position and ends when the ball becomes dead..."

By rule, playing action cannot occur during a dead ball and the rule regarding coaches physically assisting only covers those actions that occur during playing action. It may be an oversight in the rule, but it appears that a coach can during a dead ball physically assist a runner.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
No, you didn't...you quoted the wrong rule and I pointed that out. Did you notice no one else is supporting your thoughts? The coach physically prevented a runner from committing a baserunning infraction - most of us understand that to be illegal.

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by Kaliix
WWTB,
I am inclined to agree with your interpretation of the coach preventing passing by physically stopping it from happening.

However, the rule doesn't support it, at least from what I have found in the rule book.

Rule 3-2-2 states: "No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action."

Playing action is defined in Rule 2-29-1 as (refering to the word play), "The term is also used to denote a unit of action which begins when a pitcher has the ball in his possession in pitching position and ends when the ball becomes dead..."

By rule, playing action cannot occur during a dead ball and the rule regarding coaches physically assisting only covers those actions that occur during playing action. It may be an oversight in the rule, but it appears that a coach can during a dead ball physically assist a runner.

Very well reasoned - and unassailable as far as FED rules go.

Pending a ruling, the TASO education committee, at my urging, removed this very question from the 2006 state test.

The case book at 3.2.2A is wonderfully ambiguous. Dead ball on a home run over the fence. Coach helps a runner to his feet: "He [the runner] is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach."

Now, does "this type" refer only to assisting the runner to rise? Or does it refer to any assistance ("Touch that base, boy!) during a dead ball?

I agree with you. It is an oversight. The "common sense" solution is to call out the runner because of coach interference.

A parallel example: The defense with a dead ball attempts the hidden ball play. The umpire erronesouly puts the ball in play (the pitcher doesn't have it on the mound), and the first baseman tags out R1. It's a balk, right?

Wrong? The ball is dead, so the actions of the defense, though "illegal," cannot be punished.

IF an umpire wants to penalize this dead-ball "interference," he may do so, because of the ambiguity of 3.2.2A, by invoking 10-2-3g, the FED "points not covered" rule: "Hey, coach, everybody saw you keep that runner from missing a base. Heck, common sense tells us...."

Again, I commend you for the thoroughness of your research. I'm copying your post and sending it up the chain of command for an official ruling.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

So...are you agreeing with me, Carl? I believe that I've maintained this all along.

I agreed with your dead ball logic on another thread and we've transferred that here.

It would be refreshing to see you actually acknowledge that I was correct. I've done as much for you.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Steve,
I've given it some thought and found these; they might help.


"The only gracious way to accept an insult is to ignore it; if you can’t ignore it, top it; if you can’t top it, laugh at it; if you can’t laugh at it, it’s probably deserved." ~ Russell Lynes

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent."
~ Eleanor Roosevelt


"Insults can have immediate impact, delayed impact or no impact at all. It is up to the umpire to determine whether he or she will be affected by another's words. Words rarely cause injuries that require ice." ~ from my clinic on confrontational situations last year

[David B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

Very well reasoned - and unassailable as far as FED rules go.

Pending a ruling, the TASO education committee, at my urging, removed this very question from the 2006 state test.

The case book at 3.2.2A is wonderfully ambiguous. Dead ball on a home run over the fence. Coach helps a runner to his feet: "He [the runner] is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach."

Now, does "this type" refer only to assisting the runner to rise? Or does it refer to any assistance ("Touch that base, boy!) during a dead ball?

I agree with you. It is an oversight. The "common sense" solution is to call out the runner because of coach interference.

A parallel example: The defense with a dead ball attempts the hidden ball play. The umpire erronesouly puts the ball in play (the pitcher doesn't have it on the mound), and the first baseman tags out R1. It's a balk, right?

Wrong? The ball is dead, so the actions of the defense, though "illegal," cannot be punished.

IF an umpire wants to penalize this dead-ball "interference," he may do so, because of the ambiguity of 3.2.2A, by invoking 10-2-3g, the FED "points not covered" rule: "Hey, coach, everybody saw you keep that runner from missing a base. Heck, common sense tells us...."

Again, I commend you for the thoroughness of your research. I'm copying your post and sending it up the chain of command for an official ruling.

I see the point you are making, but I still can't find it in the rule to call him out.

I see this practically the same as the coach helping the runner to his feet who fell down?

And then we have the major league example of Mark McGuire as precedence? (g)

Just thinking aloud this morning, but also still can't find it to call him out.

Thanks
David

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by David B

I see the point you are making, but I still can't find it in the rule to call him out.

I see this practically the same as the coach helping the runner to his feet who fell down?

And then we have the major league example of Mark McGuire as precedence? (g)

Just thinking aloud this morning, but also still can't find it to call him out.

Thanks
David [/B]

David: It's another of those "expected" and accepted calls. (grin)

It's an easy call to sell, by the way. Likely, the offense would not complain.

On the other hand, try letting that runner score and see what the defense would say.

Lah, me: By rule you're right, of course. But when did that ever matter? (another grin)

[David B]

Originally posted by Carl Childress

David: It's another of those "expected" and accepted calls. (grin)

It's an easy call to sell, by the way. Likely, the offense would not complain.

On the other hand, try letting that runner score and see what the defense would say.

Lah, me: By rule you're right, of course. But when did that ever matter? (another grin) [/B]

Upon further review, that makes sense.

And we know of course how easy it is to sell the "expected calls"

Good to get my brain working on a Friday morning

Thanks
David

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
No, you didn't...you quoted the wrong rule and I pointed that out. Did you notice no one else is supporting your thoughts? The coach physically prevented a runner from committing a baserunning infraction - most of us understand that to be illegal.

Okay I lied. I'm responding again. Only because you have again misspoken. You brought up Rule 5-1-2(f), not me. I never quoted "the wrong rule". I quoted the same one you did, but told you to re-read it carefully. The rule does not apply to when the ball is already dead. I asked you to find the rule that says that a coach cannot assist when the ball is dead. I also stated that that by rule, playing action is over when the ball becomes dead. That is also true. What "wrong rule" did I quote? I just asked you to provide a rule that supported your statements. You still haven't, because there is none.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve

Okay I lied. I'm responding again. Only because you have again misspoken. You brought up Rule 5-1-2(f), not me. I never quoted "the wrong rule". I quoted the same one you did, but told you to re-read it carefully. The rule does not apply to when the ball is already dead. I asked you to find the rule that says that a coach cannot assist when the ball is dead. I also stated that that by rule, playing action is over when the ball becomes dead. That is also true. What "wrong rule" did I quote? I just asked you to provide a rule that supported your statements. You still haven't, because there is none.

I knew you couldn't stay away. You say that a coach can't be called out for assisting a runner and multiple responders have told you that they don't agree. You keep asking me for a rule that allows it, but I provided it already. I don't recall a specific rule that says the coach may be called for interference during a dead ball because there is already one that says he will be penalized for assisting a runner under any circumstances. Look under the penalty phase of 5-1-2f. Yes, it says that it would be a delayed dead ball under normal circumstances; that implies that you wouldn't stop other playing action because of the infraction, that is all. We are not stopping anything, the coach prevented a costly penalty by interjecting himself into the field of play. He is not allowed to be there. Lots of things happen on dead balls, we require the touching of bases, prevent unsportsmanlike acts, etc. Dead ball doesn't mean ignore everything else!

[SanDiegoSteve]

WWTB,

I don't mean to say that I would allow shenanagins or Tom Foolery on the part of the coach when the ball is dead. What I said was, going strictly by the cockamamey Fed rules, that no provision prohibits such actions. I have personally never witnessed such unsportsmanlike acts by a coach, but I would like to have a rule supporting their punishment if the situation ever occurs. 3-2-2 is flawed. The Case Book says a coach can assist a runner whenever the ball is dead. What kind of assistance is where it becomes vague, wouldn't you agree? 5-1-2 does not even mention anything about a dead ball situation, even though you keep quoting it as a reference. That won't change the fact that the Fed did not directly address this omission. From what Carl has said, I gather that they are in the process of clarifying this very situation.

Cordially yours,

Steve

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
WWTB,

I don't mean to say that I would allow shenanagins or Tom Foolery on the part of the coach when the ball is dead. What I said was, going strictly by the cockamamey Fed rules, that no provision prohibits such actions. I have personally never witnessed such unsportsmanlike acts by a coach, but I would like to have a rule supporting their punishment if the situation ever occurs. 3-2-2 is flawed. The Case Book says a coach can assist a runner whenever the ball is dead. What kind of assistance is where it becomes vague, wouldn't you agree? 5-1-2 does not even mention anything about a dead ball situation, even though you keep quoting it as a reference. That won't change the fact that the Fed did not directly address this omission. From what Carl has said, I gather that they are in the process of clarifying this very situation.

Cordially yours,

Steve

Again, you are mixing your rulings. 5-1-2f states the penalty for a coach who assists a runner. It would normally be a delayed dead ball and the runner would be declared out. Since we already have a dead ball, there is no need for that action, but you still have an infraction and penalty to deal with. I'm certain you can discern between picking a runner up who has fallen and preventing a runner from passing another. Simply, one is assisting and the other is preventing.

I will not beat the drum again, but this is very similar to the Verbal Obstruction debate. The book states nothing about the exact play, but we have to use our judgement to keep things fair. A runner tripping over a base gains no advantage by being helped up. In my play, the coach gained a tremendous advantage by his actions. Others have told you this, not just me. Yes, the NFHS rulebook is ambiguous but this is a no brainer. You are a veteran umpire and should know that we penalize those who cheat. This coach cheated and the out is called.

Unabashedly Vocal,

WhatWuzThatBlue