Obstruction or interference

[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]