Here's a question from the 1996 Texas state umpires' exam.

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. The umpire will rule:
<blockquote>A. The obstruction balances out the interference. Let the play stand.
B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.
C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.
D. Call the runner out and kill play immediately.</blockquote>As part of the new state curriculum, I am putting together a data bank of about 1000 test questions asked of our umpires over the past 15 years. (Texas doesn't use the NFHS test: too many complaints about trick questions. We don't use their football rules, either.)

I'm editing the questions for form and content. For example, I have to change those that say the umpire calls out the runner for missing second to "calls him out on proper appeal." Etc.

I also have to update the Answer Keys in light of rule changes. Etc.

I've finished about 700 and arrived at the question above. Procedure: I take the test and compare my answers with theirs. I'm doing pretty well. (grin) But my answer for this question differed from theirs.

There hasn't been a relevant rule change, and I don't have any record of arguing with Dotson Lewis about this item. And I don't have my answer sheet from February 1996.

My question, then, is:

Should the "correct" answer be:

B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.

or

C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.

Help convince me that I'm wrong and Dotson was right.

Pick your answer and support it with rules language or standard baseball explication.

FED rules only, of course.

BTW: I picked answer....

Lah, me: You didn't really think I was going to reveal that, did you?

According to FED rules, on obstruction the runner is awarded one base (at a minimum) therefore if the runner was obstructed before he reached third, then touched third and advanced beyond third at his own risk, the obstruction is nullified. From that point, the coach touching him is a delayed dead ball and the runner is out at the end of the play. I would say the answer is C.

Thinking Too Much
 

It's my biggest problem, y'know...

Using the clues from the play:

a.) runner advancing on a hit from second (these usually involve R2 scoring),

b.) an obstruction,

c.) a trip over the base (arguably caused by the obstruction), and

d.) a coach pushing the runner toward home;

lead me to believe that the runner would have scored without the obstruction. The attempted interference in this case would be ignored because of the above reasoning. There is nothing in the rules that says a coach's physical interference supercedes obstruction. I would have to go with (B) not necesarily because it (OBS)happened first but because the INT had no bearing on the play.

Of course, umpire judgment prevails and if the umpire did not feel that the runner would have scored without the obstruction, then I would go with JPC's answer.

D'MAN

I agree with D-MAN if in my judgement the runner would have scored w/o the obstruction. The question should include some clue as to whether the runner had the intent of scoring or rather he was likely to score. If that was the case, B would be the right answer. If we was slowing up to stop at third, C would be the answer.

I agree with jpc that it matters whether R2 was trying to score. But I still say B: protect R2 to 3B or home depending on what he could have done without the obstruction.

I thought "protect" meant R2 has no liability to be put out - and if so, then R2 should not be out for coach's interference, especially in light of the fact that the interference resulted from the obstruction.

I'm not going to read anything into this other than what is provided in the question (ie could he have scored, did he trip because of the obstruction, etc.) so based only on what is provided I would say C is the answer. 2-22-1 would awared the runner 3B on the obstruction, but he continued toward home, after tripping on the bag. Then, 3-2-2 kicks in, since the coach interfered by assisting the runner. Both are delayed dead ball situations so after playing action is over call the runner out.

I could be wrong, but I'm going out on that proverbial limb to say "B" is correct.

My reasoning is simple: The runner started out at second base. He was advancing on a hit. He was obstructed.

There. I am going to award this guy home, because F5 has deprived him of his right to run unimpeded. We'll never know whether or not he would or wouldn't have scored had there been no obstruction. I will make the case that he would have, in my judgment. I have the runner protected to home plate. If they subsequently make a play at home on this runner, I have obstruction and the run scores.

Had there not been obstruction, then I would have coaches interference, and that runner would be out.

You cannot imagine how many umpires I've heard say that after they tanked on a test.

Why is this a "trick question"?

Here's the US Weather Bureau's prediction for conditions in my town today:

<blockquote><font color=navy><b>Partly cloudy in the morning then clearing. Patchy fog in the morning. Windy. Highs in the upper 80s. South winds around 15 mph increasing to 20 to 25 mph in the late morning and afternoon.

Tonight
Mostly clear. Lows in the upper 50s. South winds around 10 mph early in the evening becoming light. </blockquote></font></b>Hey, next weekend we're hosting a USSSA 18u tournament.

Guys and diamondgal: Sorry about gloating. Of course, I admit that tonight's weather is dreadful. Still....

(B)- Would be my choice as well. Unless I had an extremely slow R2 who had no chance of scoring whatsoever, or started to pull up on the bag for some other reason, I'm enforcing the obstruction and avancing R2 to the plate.


Tim.

How could we ignore the coach's interference like this though?

All hits do not result in R2 scoring, it depends on what kind of hit and where. The obstruction in the question was on the 3B man, before he reached the base (he tripped over the base after the obstruction) so the award should be 3B. The question did not lead us any farther than that. The question does not lead us to consider why he tripped, he just tripped. Even if the obstruction caused him to trip does that relieve the 3B coach from a coaches interference penalty? I don't know why it would. This is why I did not want to read more into the question than is there. Don't assume anything that is not specifically mentioned in the question and then rule.

I have to agree with DG here, there is nothing except our imagination that says the runner was able to advance to home. Just that the runner "advances on a hit". A ball hit deep in the hole and thrown late by F6, satisfies this criteria. The batter is credited with a hit, correct.

Therefore the runner acheived the base to which an award would be made. Now, the ball gets away from F3 and Coach helps the runner on the ground and assists him home.

Runner out.

As DG states, reading the question as written, Ans. is C.

OK Carl
 

Give us the answer already.

It's 37 degrees and murky here. I did plant my garlic, though. No baseball.

Did I say please? PPPLLEEEEAAASSSEEEE!?!

My attempt -- I'd call the runner out (answer C).

Obstruction results in an award of one or more bases. In FED an "award" is the right to run without being put out by the defense (there's some phrase near to that in the book). It doesn't absolve the runner of the requirement to run the bases "legally".

Re: OK Carl
 

Listen carefully, my friend. I don't <i>know</i> the answer.

I'm going to wait a couple of days in the next week because some people don't post over the weekend.

Thanks for participating.

My thermometer says it's 86 now at 3:57 pm central standard time.

When it drops below 80, I put on long pants.
When it drops below 70, I put on a jacket.
When it drops below 60, I stay inside.

Why? Show me that rule in any book.

My gut tells me it's "C". But it's lied to me before...like when it said, "Order the 20 oz porterhouse, you can eat it."

Runner advance beyond his award for the obstruction. He's not protected from his coach's stupidty at that point.

Well i look at it this way:

When a batter hits a HR he is awarded 4 bases. If, let's say, that batter misses 3rd base and the 3rd base coach grabs him, and directs him backwards to retouch the base, we have an out, don't we?

I think the situation Carl gives us is no different.

My answer is C.


BobJenkins also has a very good answer.

Are you saying that the runner would be protected from his coach's stupidity had the umpire decided to award R2 home, instead of third on the obstruction?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PWL
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress

Quote:

Originally posted by PWL You still have to enforce the violations in the order that they occurred. Therefore, we have C. Nothing more, nothing less.

Not necessarily. There are several case plays where one offense is superseded by another that happened after the first. See 8.4.2 Situations T and and U for examples.

There are also a couple interesting case plays 3.2.2 Situation A and B. In A a coach assisting a runner is allowed because the runner is assisted during a dead ball award. In B a coach assisting a runner results in an out during a live ball.

None of this matters to the play in question. The runner is not awarded home (at least there is no evidence in the question to do so), and even if he were it's still a live ball and he needs to run the bases legally, without assistance from coach.

After a home run over the fence, you suggest that's an out. But it isn't in FED. Check out CB 3.2.2.

Hmmmmm....
 

Biggie, I like your thinking. Your interpretation is wrong (NFHSwise: See case 3.2.2, Sit. A) but if a batter-runner hits one that gets by a fielder into a corner for an apparent easy in-the-parker, trips over third base and is helped up by a coach, THEN he is out.

The coach has ruined the offense's chance at a potential award here. The order of things and the number of bases to nullify obstruction have no bearing here. The obstruction surely caused a trip (to the ground, not the mound) but had there been no interference by the coach, the obstruction could have been awarded. Instead, since the ball is delayed dead (thus, live when the interference occurred) the runner is still liable to be put out for some other reason. If put out by a fielder, the umpire would then have to judge where the runner would have been protected to. Since physical interference by a coach has a specific penalty, one that we must enforce if it occurs during a live ball, then we can still get the out.

Furthermore, my first post gave an answer that can't be correct. If the order of the infractions has no importance in this play, then (B.) cannot be a correct answer, even if one was to enforce the obstruction.

I now go with (C.).

This gets more interesting by the minute. In CB 3.2.2 Situation A the coach helped the runner to his feet while he was running the bases after a HR. Now if he were to grab the runner after he missed 3B and force him back to the base to tag is the coach allowed to provide this kind of assistance, vs. helping a runner to his feet who has already tagged the base? The coach could holler at him to return to tag, but can he grab him and make him tag?

Carl's case is different, since the ball is live.

I still have C though, obstruction awards 3B and coach interference causes the out.

well i gotta say, this has to be one of the toughest "what if's" i've ever read on the internet.

I just think that the coach's interference is an automatic out- no matter if the runner was obstructed. Like bob said, you are still required to run the bases properly even if you are awarded bases.

I would agree with that assesement for the most part. With that being said, *if* the runner tripped on the bag as a result of the obstruction, I still feel the runner should be avanced to at least third without regard to the interference.

I realize this is reading more into the play than what was initially presented, but in order to actually rule on this play, one would have to see it unfold to be sure.

At least that's how I see it.

Tim.

I can't wait for Carl's result to come out, but I don't think it's that hard. Runner is awarded 3rd, or home if you feel benevolent, but the ball is live and he still has to run the bases legally. If we award him home, and he leaps over a standing catcher at home to reach the plate he is out, see case book plays referenced earlier. If he slides into the catcher illegally he should also be out, same reason. If his coach helps him to his feet... well you can see where I'm going. I think the coach's help is an out if it is a dead ball, the runner is awarded home, and the help in no way negates a failure to run the bases legally (I'm still on the fence on grabbing him and making him go back to tag a missed base).

Let me pose, along with this issue, a mechanics question. I know how I have always done it, and how I was taught and now I am looking in my different references to see if I'm doing it right. On a play like this (runner rounding 3B who is obstructed before reaching 3b), I have always signaled the obstruction and then made a mental note of the degree to which the obstruction hindered the runner and in my mind concluded that if he is thrown out on a close play at the plate he will be awarded home, but if it is not close he is out, or if the hindrance was not that severe then the award is 3B.

I recall a play in the Oakland Boston series in 2003 when a runner was called out between 3b and home after an obstruction call as he was advancing to 3b. The runner stopped running on his way to home, apparently thinking he was going to be awarded home, and I think if he had been called out on a close play a case could be made for awarding home, but since he stopped running he removed his chance for that ruling.

So my question, do you decide immediately what the award is, or let the play happen before you decide. Or, do you do like I do, decide to award if the play is close, but not if it is not (or if he stops running)?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PWL
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by DG

Quote:

Originally posted by PWL Quote: Originally posted by Carl Childress Quote: Originally posted by PWL You still have to enforce the violations in the order that they occurred. Therefore, we have C. Nothing more, nothing less. Not necessarily. There are several case plays where one offense is superseded by another that happened after the first. See 8.4.2 Situations T and and U for examples. There are also a couple interesting case plays 3.2.2 Situation A and B. In A a coach assisting a runner is allowed because the runner is assisted during a dead ball award. In B a coach assisting a runner results in an out during a live ball. None of this matters to the play in question. The runner is not awarded home (at least there is no evidence in the question to do so), and even if he were it's still a live ball and he needs to run the bases legally, without assistance from coach. If you are talking about malicious contact, illegal slide, hurdling, or jumping. Yeah, your right. But that is not the case here. I don't have a rule book or case book handy, so it is difficult for me to quote where to find things. I prefer to do it like this since I don't have them on the field. But, I did it just now to see if I could find anything. The best I could find in the FED case book is 8.3.2 Situation H. See if that helps

This helps in that it says we should rule on things in the order they occured, but as I mentioned, it is not necessarily always so. Some things supercede others, such as those you listed.

I love this discussion, but if I saw this exact case on the field I would say C is the answer. Every FED coach should know that obstruction is one base minimum, or more if the umpire decides the obstruction merits more. But every FED coach should also know that helping a runner to his feet is an OUT. I have learned herein that if it is during a dead ball award it is not an out.

In this case I think it is a short discussion with the coach, who will never help a runner to his feet again....ever, if he is smart.

I have to agree with SDS and BU56. I believe R2 is going to be awarded home on the OBS, so I'm ignoring the INT by the coach.

Rules state the award is at least one base. It doesn't say it is only one base.

If this hit is into shallow left, then he's probably getting held up at third, not picked up and pushed home. He was obstructed, fell and still got home (or had the chance to get there). This tells me he should get the 2 base award. Ignore the INT by the coach.

We have to remember that in this case we award those bases we think he would have gotten. A little bit of the God rule in action.

JMO -

Thanks, SDS for mentioning this board again.

Batter hits over the fence home run. BR misses third, and the coach grabs him by the back of the shirt and yanks him back to the base. No interference also?


*******************
I now realize that this example is incorrect, as the term "playing action" refers to only live ball situations.

[Edited by LDUB on Nov 28th, 2005 at 11:52 AM]

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

What caused the thread is this: My answer was C. The Key gave B as the answer.

Here's information that will help explain the situation. From Roland Wiederaenders:

<blockquote>My notes from the 1996 test show that
1. Dotson Lewis decided to omit the question because there were two possible answers, both true at the same time. The test procedure allowed for only one correct possible answer for each test question.

2. In a note sent to the chapter presidents, the answer was revised to allow: First, B, giving the runner third base, protecting him there, and no farther. Since the hit described in the question was not accurately described as either an outfield or infield hit, we don't know where the ball is.

If the hit was to the outfield, then the test provides no possible correct answer [A is not sufficient because of the first sentence]. If the hit was to the outfield, and the ball was thrown to home plate and the runner was called out, then the obstruction penalty would have awarded him home plate. Again, there is no possible test answer to cover that possibility.

If the hit was to the infield, and the throw came to third, the coach's push may have been cause for an interference and out decision. Again, the test question was not complete enough, so we are left with more answering indecision.

3. For the sake of peace at the chapter meeting, here's what my notes indicated our collective decision would have been. Answer B, holding out a left arm, giving the runner protection to third base. <b>Then Answer C, penalizing the team for the coach's pushing indiscretion.</b>

We supported the idea that there were two plays listed in the question; therefore, two answers were proper.

I see it as another example of Jim Evans' typical educational saying: "A little information is a dangerous thing!" This question gave too few details in attempting to demonstrate the teaching emphasis for 1996 that Texas umpires were not seeing or calling enough obstruction, and the coaches were *****ing about it. In short, it was a dumb *** question!</blockquote>For purposes of the curriculum databank of questions, I will replace this one with two others:

One will demonstrate that we sometimes penalize infractions in order: Catcher interference (obstruction, FED calls it) with the batter's swing. He pops up and prevents the pitcher from making the catch at the foul line. Result: B1 gets first.

A second will demonstrate that some infractions are penalized out of order: Catcher interference (obstruction, FED calls it) with the batter's swing. He pops up and prevents the pitcher from making the catch at the foul line via a malicious crash. Result: B1 is out and ejected.

I considered that, using the catcher obstruction as a paradigm, Dotson's test answer was Correct. Obstruction occurred <i>before</i> the interference, so ignore the interference.

But the runner was protected BY RULE to third, which he made safely. As Roland points out, there's not enough information to determine whether the runner should be protected by umpire judgment to home.

Thus, my final answer: C. When he made his protected base, he advanced at his own risk. During that advance, however short it was, the coach interfered. Delayed dead ball (allowing the defense to play on the batter-runner) followed by an out.

BTW: I scanned the test into WordPerfect on 25 November and took the test that evening - for the first time. I never took that test and so was not part of the state-wide discussion of the question/answer. That's because I retired at the end of the 1995 season to watch my grandson (throws right, bats left) play Pony League. I came out of retirement because a candidate umpire said: I'd like to see that fat old man get out here and do what he's teaching.

In the meantime, my grandson switched to tennis. (His father is a tennis coach in the public schools.) Little Carl is in the eighth grade now and just won a singles tournament, not UIL sponsored. His prize was an all-expens paid trip to a two-day tennis camp in Dallas. The prize included $200 from the city to help pay for his mother's hotel room.

It ain't a million dollar contact - yet, but at least his choice of sports pleased his dad.

carl,

do you think you can make the test available for download?

C. Just because.

JJ

burt reynolds: "why dontcha give me Ape Tit for $200"
alex trebeck: "its not Ape Tit, its A Petit...nevermind"

It's copywrited by TASO. I'll check into it.

Truth to tell, it's not a very good test since the writer had not trained in writing evaluation instruments.

He has "tells,"; that is, "All of the above" when even a rookie knows that one answer is not right. That reduces it to a "True" or "False" answer and doubles his chances of getting the right answer. He has questions where, if you know the answer to Number 6, you can't miss Number 12. Those are often T/F items, sprinkled in with the multiple choice.

He also has questions with foolish distracters. Here are some actual "possible" answers:

<blockquote>"The umpire should tell the catcher he will check with his partner when he wants to and not to bother him anymore."

It's the base umpire's call.

Look away; tell the defensive coach you did not see it.</blockquote>The beauty of the tests, for my purposes, is they will allow the Texas state clinicians to evaluate their umpires without having to go to the trouble of creating their own items.

One thing I'm doing at the training in January: Each clinician will get a copy of the databank (looseleaf style to make it easy to duplicate a page). I'll ask each umpire (should be over 100) to pick five questions from five different tests. Then TASO will determine if there are any questions that appear multiple times. From that list, we'll create a power exam of questions selected by the clinicians themselves.

Exciting times in Texas.

I didn't say it was the RIGHT thing to do. I didn't like it either. I just threw it out there.

Carl,
Could you please explain how you retired in 1995 to watch your grandson play baseball, but ten years later he is in eighth grade. Did I miss something there or was he three when he started? Those games are a blast to watch. (grin - not sarcastic)

Carl was born in 1991; that makes him 14 now, one year older than the average eighth grader.

That's because his birthday is November 26, the same date as his paternal great-grandmother. He was 7 when he started the first grade.

He'll catch up next year. When he reaches high school, he will already have four credits: algebra I and II, geometry, and Spanish I. It's a class for English dominant speakers. Still, he's the only gringo in the group. His teacher told me at open house Carl had the best accent.
My math shows he was four in November 1995 after I retired in May. We play T-ball in Edinburg at four. When he started baseball in 1996, he was 4 years, 5 months old.

He threw right, batted left. Good.
He's a Boston fan. Bad.

Being a Boston Fan is not bad.

It is an exercise in humility, patience, and a belief in the idea if you support something that you really, really believe is good and right someday you will be rewarded for your loyalty.

It is also a lesson in the absurdity of curses and that egregious mistakes of the past can be overcome by smart management.

The grit of Schilling, the heart of Wakefield are only outshined by the clutchedness (my term) of Ortiz, the 2005 MVP. That's right the MVP. The tiebreak, is, get this, fielding percentage. Ortiz 0.976, the ball swatting cheaterof '04, 0.971. Who says Papi can't field?

Finally, if you spend the second most, you can still buy a championship.

I'm dumb but I'm not stupid.

D

I enjoy umpiring the twenty four year olds, but would rather watch the four year olds play.

At least he roots for a team that has won a World Series in the last century. I'm still waiting...and waiting...and waiting...

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Carl Childress
[B]Let's assume for the sake of continuing this discussion, that the umpire instantly recognized a situation where the obstructed runner should be awarded home, no question about it, based on the 3B man's obstruction, position of the ball, etc. Shortly after making this decision, the runner trips on 3B and is helped to his feet by the 3B coach. What do we have now? I have my answer ready.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B]Is he helped to his feet, or helped in the direction of home? I see this as two seperate situations.

First, there is the obligation to run the bases correctly, even on an award. (Award 1B to 3B, missed 2B can get an out on appeal) Second, is the coach assisting him in running the bases?

Coach assistance - OUT. Coach just picks the kid up - Award home and keep playing. JMO

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ManInBlue
[B]Is the coach assisting him running the bases by helping him to his feet? Are you kidding me?

<i>The tiebreak, is, get this, fielding percentage. Ortiz 0.976, the ball swatting cheaterof '04, 0.971. Who says Papi can't field?</i>

Nice try but no cigar.

.976 creates a partial vacuum for a first baseman but .971 is great for a third baseman.

At First Base:

Ortiz 2005 .976
Dick "Dr. Strangeglove" Stuart lifetime .982
Keith Hernandez lifetime .994
Steve Garvey lifetime .994
Don Mattingly lifetime .996.

At Third Base:

A-Rod 2005 .971
Mike Schmidt lifetime .961
Eric Chavez lifetime .965
Clete Boyer lifetime .966
Brooks Robinson lifetime .971

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B]No, I'm not, actually. Although I argue that the HR situation doesn't have enough similarities to this play to be used as comparison, in this case I will use it. The coach can pick a kid up that trips over a base while "being awarded" his four bases on a HR. That's legal, so I see the same type of situation unfolding in your hypothetical situation. Picking him up and helping him advance have been differentiated in the rules during the award.

So, no, I'm not kidding you. Please feel free to offer a rebuttal. You posted a hypothetical situation. I posted a question that could arise in the situation. I guess I could be playing the part of the Devil's Advocate here. But I see that the question has some relevence.

I mean no offense by the following statement, but...You seem to be a well versed official. You're responses that I've seen make valid points. I would hope that "Are you kidding me?" isn't the best reply to this that you have. I would expect more from someone like you. I would expect a thorough explaination of why you think this is such a ridiculous question. I'm sure I have just thoroughly pissed you off. So, I await the barrage that is coming.

Helping the runner to his feet is DEFINITELY textbook coach's interference. No if's and's or but's.


My answer is still C, regardless of whether or not he was awarded home. Coach's interference = out, no matter how you slice it.

If the Big Popi has played the field, not even well, just played, he would have won the award hands down. He was definitely more clutch and more feared last season, even if A-Rod put up similar numbers.

But Ortiz also got to sit on the bench while A-Rod played the field every have inning. A-Rod played third very well. There is a huge difference between playing a full game 162 times a year and only having to bat three of four times a game.

Clutch hitting is great, but you gotta contribute on the other side. That's why no DH has won the MVP.

Largeone,


Let me ask you another "what if." Let's say that R2 is obstructed right as he reaches the bag. The obstruction is severe enough(non-malicious)to cause the trip over the bag and subsequent fall. The base coach helps the runner to his feet, but does not push him toward home. No play is made on R2, and R2 simply returns to the third base bag. Would you still call R2 out for the coaches interference? He's gained no advantage.


Tim.

The obstruction caused R2 to fall -- it didn't cause the coach to assist the runner. Call the out.

O.K. Bob,

I can accept that. What should be done if R2 remains on the ground, and is played on and tagged before returning. If, you judge that third is his advance base on the obstructon?

Tim.

[Edited by BigUmp56 on Nov 30th, 2005 at 09:14 AM]

The obstruction caused the fall. Nullify the effects of the obstruction -- that includes nullifying a tag out of the runner.

Tim, When obstuction occurs, don't think of the award as "what base i'm going to protect him to" but rather think of how much the obstruction slowed him up or hindered his progress and base your award on that. If the bump caused the runner to fall down, then by all means protect him back to third since the obstruction caused him to be tagged out. If you felt he would have been tagged out anyways regardless if he was obstructed or not, then call him out.


But regarding your coach's int play: bob pretty much answered everything for me. When you call this, don't weigh whether or not they gained an advantage by the coach's assistance. If the coach moves or stops a runner in any way, it's coach's int.

Kyle said....
 

One of the Board members, who wishes to remain anonymous, is a friend of Kyle McNeely's and emailed him for his ruling, copy to me for posting.

Here's the play again:<blockquote>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. The umpire will rule:<blockquote>A. The obstruction balances out the interference. Let the play stand.
B. Penalize the obstruction since it occurred first.
C. Call the runner out after playing action is over.
D. Call the runner out and kill play immediately.</blockquote></blockquote>Here are Kyle's thoughts:<blockquote>... only in baseball, right!! We have a case of obstruction followed by interference.

Basically, as officials, we deal with these in the order that they occur. Frankly, it will always be dealt with as obstruction followed by interference since most interference immediately kills the ball, so no obstruction can occur <i>after</i> the interference.

The only issue here is that with the coach's interference, the out is declared immediately (casebook 3.2.2b). The ball is not dead immediately but killed after playing action is over.

So, the answer is really one and two. R2 is out for the interference. That is not due to the obstruction, the coach made the decision to help the runner regardless of how R2 fell. His interference cannot be excused by the obstruction. After playing action is over, the ball is dead, and we return runners to the bases they had at the time of the interference. In this case, the batter-runner would be awarded first base.

Happy Holidays.

Kyle</blockquote>Turns out, that's pretty much what Roland's notes said.

So, the short version is "C".

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ManInBlue
[B]In the HR case book play the ball was dead so there is no interference by the coach during a dead ball.

In subsequent cases the ball is live, and any time the coach at 3B helps a runner to his feet he is interfering, and an out should be recorded. Some posters here like to post erroneous postings just to get a rise

<b>In the HR case book play the ball was dead so there is no interference by the coach during a dead ball.</b>

So, playing devil;s advocate: Batter hits the ball over the center field fence. He rounds first and misses the bag. The first base coach reaches out and grabs him and pulls him back to touch the bag.

Whatcha got?

I got Mark McGwire. No interference. Score the run. Break the record.

Awwwww...you spoiled it.

I'm just trying to make the best of a "snow day." Six inches fell last night and the buses were predicted to run more than three hours late. Instead of delaying things, they cancelled school.

Good question Mr. Benham. I have coaches interference here. The base coach has attempted to deprive the defense's opportunity to appeal. I might also be sending the base coach to the parking lot for coming on the field.

I wondered back in 1999 when Big Mac hit his record breaking home run and missed first base if coaches interference might have been called had it not been such a big play.


Tim.

Darn you Carl! You beat me to the Big Mac analogy!

Tim.

If Ford Frick had been the umpire, McGwire would have been called out.

My game journal is approaching 4000 games. In all that time, I've had <b><font size = 6>ONE</b></font> interference call on a first-base coach. The third-base coach, my American Legion partner the previous summer, came rushing down: "When I saw Bobby do it, I said to myself, 'He's gonna call it!'"

R1. He takes his lead, the pitcher throws over, he goes back into the base <i>standing up</i>. The first baseman tags him strongly a la Kent Hrbek.

Parenthetically, here's what baseballlibrary.com has to say about that famous play that helped Minnesota win the 1991 World Series:<blockquote>[Gant tries to return to first.] Although Gant reached the bag safely, he was struggling to keep his balance when Hrbek subtly pushed his leg off the base and applied a tag. Gant was called out, ending the inning.</blockquote> The subtle push was a hard tag on the air-borne leg.

Gant fell off the base. R1 at Pharr didn't - because the first-base coach steadied him until he regained his balance. Old Smitty, in B, did nothing.

I called him out.

When Smitty wanted to know why I'd busted in on "his" play, I said that I knew he'd been straightlined and couldn't see. Smitty was not known for busting to get an angle.

So, I guess I was correct? I didn't see you acknowledge such, just repeated requests to test my knowledge and judgement. I imagine that if I kicked it you would have been all over the post.


Does McNeely speak for the NFHS anymore? I read somewhere that he is no longer doing that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DG
[B]That explains it. I was leaning toward the dead ball to differentiate the two. I could just see the fireworks when the out is called after awarding home.

Thanks for clarifying your view, and for reinforcing my thoughts.

As I said, "C. Just because."

JJ

Oddly enough, i found a similar play on a rules quiz (http://www.macroweb.com/ibrules/bqpg0105.htm).

Here's the play (OBR):


Runner on 2nd base with two outs. Batter hits one over the fence. As R2 rounds third he trips on the base and falls down. The third base coach helps him up and he continues home. What's the call?

Answer: Nobody is out and both runs count.

Reference: Rules 5.02, 7.05(a)

Explanation: As long as all runners legally touch the bases while advancing to home, they can touch anybody they wish. The batter or any of the runners could be carried around the bases on the shoulders of his teammates as long as he comes down and touches each base as he reaches it.
Question written by: Jim Booth, visit Jim's Umpire's Corner.



Is this accurate?

I've seen this, too. Don't recall reading the explanation, though. I guess as long as the preceding runner isn't passed, he could be carried. That's a bit of a stretch for a simple, "the ball was dead" explanation, which is the explanation given here.

I've read that as long as a preceding runner is not passed, that it is legal to assist a runner when the ball is dead. The following runner may help push the runner in front of him, just as long as he does not pass him up.

Where I read this, I can't seem to find, but it was an official rule interp of some sort.

Okay, let's see...

We have a bases loaded fence clearing home run in a Fed game. The batters were off on the pitch since it was 3-2 and the kid on first is Mr. Track Star! They watch the ball clear and start the trot, except that Mr. Track Star is now on the heals of Mr. Piano Carrier. PC trips over third and goes down. The third basecoach sees what is happening and puts up the stop sign to TS, only he is mugging for the home team fans and celebrating that they've now taken the lead against a bitter rival. The third base coach puts his hands out and stops the runner by pushing him in the chest. TS snaps out of it and grins sheepishly that he almost passed PC! You are a terrific umpire and have kept the home team back from play and are watching all of the action at third. What do you call?

This is not as Third World as it sounds. I had a batter hit one out in a game and he was sprinting around first since he didn't know if it had enough to carry the right field fence. The runner on first went half way, thought it was caught and actually collided with the batter as he got towards first! The first base coach picked up the batter and screamed at the runner. It is a strange game...

Third?
 

What runner at third?

Actually, it would depend on how well I knew the coach as to the stern warning that he would receive.

thanks
David

The batters were off on the pitch? How many batters were there?

Was Mr. Track Star a faith healer as he was on Mr. Piano Carrier's heals?

That's what happens when you type too fast. Spell check would never catch the latter and the first was just thinking ahead of my fingers.

Regardless, SDS, I did not see your answer - again.

As for a warning - wholly inappropriate unless this game was t-ball level. It was stated as being otherwise.

WWWWWWWWTTTTTTTBBBBBB,

In all fairness, the spell check doesn't work on this site.
I only mentioned it because of that fourth grade writing comment a while back.:D

My answer is that it's O-tay! The coach can pick that runner up, dust him off, spin him around like a top, kick him in the peepee, and point him at the next base, and as long as the following runner (Mr. Speedy) doesn't pass him, no problem. When the ball is dead, interference cannot occur. Period.

Okay, he also can punch Mr. Track Star in the grill as far as I'm concerned. Ball's dead. Playing action ends when ball is dead, by rule.

[Edited by SanDiegoSteve on Dec 1st, 2005 at 05:46 PM]

Spell check exists on my computer though. Again, you tend to read more into it than was provided.

You need to rethink your answer. The coach prevented the runner from passing the one on the ground and causing an out. His actions are illegal - dead ball or not. Check 5-1-2f to see what it means.

Read 5-1-2(f) again carefully. Actually, start with 5-1-2. It is for a delayed dead ball situation. That isn't applicable in the case of an over the fence homerun. The ball immediately became dead the second it left the park. 5-1-2(f) is for when a ball is alive and in play. Find anywhere in the rules that says coaches interference can occur when the ball is dead, and then get back to me. But not until.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 <i>any</i> 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.

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.

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

Good point
 

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

Re: Good point
 

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)