Obstruction or interference

[SanDiegoSteve]

Aw, jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzzzzzzzzz,

Did you not see my first sentence? I said I would not allow these activities. I was just pointing out another ruling which isn't spelled out, yet should be.

Don't mistake my musings and posing of questions for lacking umpiring common sense. I have done just fine over lo, these many years. I've only had a couple of protests filed in 20 years, and did not lose either of those. I'm really not going to let the coach do those things, but I would like to see it written in black and white, too.

Like Rush Limbaugh, I sometimes say things that are absurd, in order to point out the absurdity of others. This is the case here. That's what my argument was based on to begin with, absurdity. I said that according to the non-specific rule (3-2-2), a coach could do all sorts of things with the baserunners when the ball was dead. Do you see what I was going for? Just making a point, which in hindsight was a bad idea.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

I think I'm going to need more than one Heineken tonight.

So let me get this straight...you were arguing for the sake of arguing? All of us understand the ambiguity of the rules, but you made this your Alamo. We tried to tell you what should be called and even provided the ruling. Now you claim that you would penalize the coach?




Honey, do we have anything stronger than Heineken? Bring me the Jack, please.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
I think I'm going to need more than one Heineken tonight.

So let me get this straight...you were arguing for the sake of arguing? All of us understand the ambiguity of the rules, but you made this your Alamo. We tried to tell you what should be called and even provided the ruling. Now you claim that you would penalize the coach?




Honey, do we have anything stronger than Heineken? Bring me the Jack, please.

You provided a ruling which does not apply to the situation. 10-2-3 may, but that is up to the individual umpire who is making then call. 5-1-2 does not address the situation directly.

Pour me a shooter of that Jack while you're at it.

Of course I am going to call the runner out. I am not the only umpire who responded that the rules have no provision for this situation. Others did as well. You said "we" tried to tell "you" blah, blah....No, you tried to tell me. I was only pointing out that there existed no rule addressing the play of which you asked for opinions. 5-1-2 does not cover it, so quit trying to make it fit in this case. 10-2-3(g) is the only rule you can fall back on for this kind of TWP (you might see this play all the time, but I never have.)

[ManInBlue]

WWTB - I'm not taking sides here. I haven't read the rules sited to know what's said in them. I just jumped in to say that I understand Steve's point about arguing the absurdity of this situation. I think the fact that the both of you are knowledgeable of the rule and the situation, and still managed to draw this out this far further proves the absurdity within.

Steve has taken a stance equal to that of an irrate coach. He wants to see it in black and white. But what he sees when he looks doesn't give him the same answer that you were giving him. I can see a protest in the making here.

You may be 100% correct, he may be. Either way the continuos debate has lead me to believe that his statements were made more than just for the sake of arguing.

This situation, if it occurs, would cause several people to pop a top. You better make tht Jack a double!!

Darien

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Already did...

I appreciate the candor, but the fact remains that he can't have it both ways. There is a penalty for a coach preventing a runner from passing another. The runner is out and the coach is ejected. 5-1-2f tells us to call the runner out and the book is full of examples of unsportsmanlike behavior examples.

I still contend that if you want to argue that I have to call V.O. (when there is no specific rule pertaining to the example we have long debated) you better be perpared to drop your argument about implied rules for this one.

As I stated, I had a similar play happen, this is not a TWP. I tossed the coach and player when they crossed a line. The runner was called out and I had a few Heinekens that night. I can still hear the coach, "The rule is ambiguous, I know he should be out, but the rule is ambiguous..." No, that's someone else.

[Kaliix]

WWTB,
I agree with calling the runner out in your situation, but the Rule Book does not allow it. Rule 3-2-2 clearly states: "No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action." Playing action is defined as the ball being live.

I do not have the case book, but I wouldn't think that the case book could supercede a black and white rule.

Perhaps you or Steve should directly quote 5-1-2f so that this disagreement may be settled.

I would like to read what it says because if it allows coaching interference during a dead ball, it directly contradicts a rule book rule. Obviously, that would be problematic.

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
Already did...

I appreciate the candor, but the fact remains that he can't have it both ways. There is a penalty for a coach preventing a runner from passing another. The runner is out and the coach is ejected. 5-1-2f tells us to call the runner out and the book is full of examples of unsportsmanlike behavior examples.

I still contend that if you want to argue that I have to call V.O. (when there is no specific rule pertaining to the example we have long debated) you better be perpared to drop your argument about implied rules for this one.

As I stated, I had a similar play happen, this is not a TWP. I tossed the coach and player when they crossed a line. The runner was called out and I had a few Heinekens that night. I can still hear the coach, "The rule is ambiguous, I know he should be out, but the rule is ambiguous..." No, that's someone else.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Federation Rule 5-1-2...It is a delayed dead ball when: (f) a coach physically assists a runner (see 3-2-2).

Federation Rule 3-2-2...No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action.PENALTY: The ball is dead at the end of playing action. The involved batter-runner or runner is out and any additional outs made on the play stand. Runners not put out return to bases occupied at the time of the infraction.

Federation Case Book interpretation for Rule 3-2-2 Situation A: B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while rounding third, trips over the base. The third base coach helps B1 to his feet.RULING: The ball is dead and, since B1 is awarded four bases for the home run, he is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third base coach.

Federation Rule 10-2-3(g): (the umpire-in-chief) Make final decision on points not covered by the rules.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

How about the important parts...

The PENALTY for violating 5-1-2f (remember a coach assisting a runner, NO MENTION OF LIVE OR DEAD BALL) is that the runner is out!

I have not once said that 3-2-2 is applicable. On the contrary, I wrote exactly what you should do, call the runner out and since there is no delayed dead ball you should know what to do!!!

The casebook example of the kid tripping over the base is VERY DIFFERENT than a coach preventing a runner from passing another, but I've already stated that MULTIPLE times.

Finally and most importantly, 5-2-2 states that when the ball becomes dead, no action by the defense can cause a player to be put out. I did not see mention of interference not being allowed.

I realize that this is not the same play, but...
some of us are confused to think that runners cannot be called out when the ball is dead. I can think of at least two situations:
1) a player misses a base or leaves to early and the ball goes out of play.

2) interference by a runner on a force out - immediate dead ball and the batter runner is usually called out for the dead ball out.

This is truly silly, call the out and know that the rule is there to support you. By now a couple of the rule hawks would have told you otherwise. I can think of at least three others that know the Fed book really well. Haven't heard any disputes from them, have we?

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue
How about the important parts...

The PENALTY for violating 5-1-2f (remember a coach assisting a runner, NO MENTION OF LIVE OR DEAD BALL) is that the runner is out!

I have not once said that 3-2-2 is applicable. On the contrary, I wrote exactly what you should do, call the runner out and since there is no delayed dead ball you should know what to do!!!

The casebook example of the kid tripping over the base is VERY DIFFERENT than a coach preventing a runner from passing another, but I've already stated that MULTIPLE times.

Finally and most importantly, 5-2-2 states that when the ball becomes dead, no action by the defense can cause a player to be put out. I did not see mention of interference not being allowed.

I realize that this is not the same play, but...
some of us are confused to think that runners cannot be called out when the ball is dead. I can think of at least two situations:
1) a player misses a base or leaves to early and the ball goes out of play.

2) interference by a runner on a force out - immediate dead ball and the batter runner is usually called out for the dead ball out.

This is truly silly, call the out and know that the rule is there to support you. By now a couple of the rule hawks would have told you otherwise. I can think of at least three others that know the Fed book really well. Haven't heard any disputes from them, have we?

Are you drunk? Too many shots of J.D.? I was asked to quote the rules, so I did. Where did the new argument start? I certainly didn't pull your chain and solicit any remarks from you. This was between Kaliix and me.

You're right, the two situations that you gave have nothing to do with anything. Both infractions occured while the ball was alive. In 1) the ball has to be put back in play (making it a live ball) prior to an appeal. In 2) it is enforcing a penalty which was derived from a continous live action play. Neither one occured during a dead ball. As you stated, check rule 5-2-2.

3-2-2 Case Book Situation A does not specify all the examples of physical assistance. It only lists one type. It does not, however, say that other forms of assistance, such as slowing down a speedy runner are illegal.

Now, I have been playing devil's advocate this whole time, knowing I would get a big rise out of you. Mission Accomplished, to quote W. I would no more allow a coach to physically prevent the runner from passing the preceding runner as you, or Tee, or Garth, or as would anybody with the sense God gave a pissant.

But don't keep telling me that 5-1-2 (f) says one single thing about assistance during a dead ball situation. It only applies to live ball situations.

And finally, what brought up Rule 5-2-2? No action by the defense can cause a player to be put out. So, what does that have to do with the offensive coach? Just because this rule did not refer to coaches interference, doesn't mean it is not allowed. It should be addressed somewhere in the rules, but the reality is, it is not. That is the whole basis of my argument, not whether or not we should call Homeboy out and, either warn or dump the idiot coach.

You keep saying this discussion is silly, but I say it is educational. I had never given this situation any thought before you brought it up. That is what really cracks me up about you. Your pattern is very predictable. It has been pointed out by others, who I guess you respect too much to refute their comments. You love to start a hypothetical question (or a real situation,) then get everyone to comment about it (even goading us by reminding us that we failed to respond to your query.) Then, when certain people have an opinion which differs from your own, you try to make them feel stupid, since you have all the right answers. Then finally, you tell everyone that the argument is silly, or ridiculous, and then you want to stop talking about it. Somebody please tell me I'm wrong here (if I am, but I'm not. And not you WWTB, I know you think I'm wrong.) I knew that if I took the ridiculous side of this situation, rather than the "expected call", or logical one, that I would elicit the desired responses from you, just like with Pavlov's dog and a bell.

Keep those cards and letters coming....

Steve in sunny San Diego

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Dec 3rd, 2005 at 02:52 AM]

[Carl Childress]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
You're right, the two situations that you gave have nothing to do with anything. Both infractions occured while the ball was alive. In 1) the ball has to be put back in play (making it a live ball) prior to an appeal. In 2) it is enforcing a penalty which was derived from a continous live action play. Neither one occured during a dead ball. As you stated, check rule 5-2-2.

Steve in sunny San Diego

Steve: One minor correction: In FED the ball does not have to be made alive for either the coach or a player to make an appeal.

Second: I have it on good authority that the NFHS is going to release an official interpretation that will support an umpire who calls out the runner for interference during a dead ball if it assists the runner in running the bases.

Everyone I've talked to understands that the rule is, not ambiguous, but wrong. They're going to fix it, so I'm told.

Hey, don't be bragging about "sunny" California as if you were the only ones with good weather in December. I have a triple-header tomorrow; double-header Sunday. 18u seeding tournament.

Expected highs are 88 both days with partly cloudy skies and winds from the south at 10-15 mph. (So says WeatherBug.)

[Edited by Carl Childress on Dec 3rd, 2005 at 08:04 AM]

[SanDiegoSteve]

Carl,

Point taken with regard to the ball not having to be made live for an appeal. Why is that though? I know, I know, buy the book, buy the book.

Actually it's rainy San Diego, it just hasn't made it the 20 miles inland to my place yet.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Carl,

Let me see if I can answer my own question. The reason the Fed allows a Dead Ball Appeal is because they don't think little Sammy Snotnose can execute a proper appeal if he has to wait for the ball to be made alive. They are afraid he might "err", therefore altering the "spirit of the rule", or some such poppycock. Is this close?

Steve in cloudy, with rain expected all day San Diego

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Thank you Carl, I've been trying to get him to admit that I made the right call within the my initial post.

I know, I know, he was just trying to get a rise out of me for the past few days. That's why he maintained the same position with others. (grin)

Now we can move on.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by thomaswhite

Brilliant, you hooked him line and sinker, Hoorah! A coup de twat it is! Move aside Lincoln and Douglas!

I Googled "pissant", no living images, could you assist?

(cough) [/B]

I Dogpile searched for your brain. Results came back negative.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by thomaswhite


Perhaps you missspelledd "brain" could happen when one is devoid of one.

Try again, copy and paste, tut-tut, return with your findings, off with you, tarry not, woof, real brains await!

Parents,

This is what can happen if you don't keep your kids away from crack.