Coaches Interference in NCAA

[SanDiegoSteve]

WWTB,

I thought there was something funny about the rule, because the Case Book answer in 3-2-2B seemed to contradict the rule book. It says in the Case Book that the runner is called out immediately for coach's interference, but the book makes no reference to the time the runner is declared out.

So, you say that you and Carl already addressed the issue? Is that what Carl meant when he said that the Fed was going to rework 3-2-2? They need to look at the language in 5-1-2 also while they're at it.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by thomaswhite

Because that is what you do when obstruction ocurs? Where did you miss the the conversation, that you started by shouting at BigUmp, about DELAYED DEAD BALLs?

Where are the "others", the ones who align themselves with the Dumb Bully?

It is hard to shout with written words. It sounds like the rook has rabbit ears.

The Dumb Bully appropriately corrected you two days ago. You've now been told by a moderator and pretty decent umpire in his own right that you were clueless. Even rookie umpires know the difference. Don't take this personally though. Seasoned umpires should be used to making calls that get criticized. We just don't get them this wrong, that's all.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by thomaswhite

I stand appropriately corrected.

Actually, this would be appropriate:

"I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me."

~Dave Barry

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by SanDiegoSteve
WWTB,

I thought there was something funny about the rule, because the Case Book answer in 3-2-2B seemed to contradict the rule book. It says in the Case Book that the runner is called out immediately for coach's interference, but the book makes no reference to the time the runner is declared out.

So, you say that you and Carl already addressed the issue? Is that what Carl meant when he said that the Fed was going to rework 3-2-2? They need to look at the language in 5-1-2 also while they're at it.

How does the Case Book contradict the rulebook, when the rule book make no reference to the timing of the out call?

WWTB did say that Carl had addressed the issue, but actually Carl didn't. Instead he commented on the Case Book ruling for coaches interference when the ball was already dead. It's odd that you don't remember-- he made the comment in a reply to you!
Quoting Carl:
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.

So far as I know Carl hasn't proferred an opinion on the timing of the out for coach's interference during a live ball, or whether the Case Book is right or wrong.

Dave Reed

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

Originally posted by Dave Reed

How does the Case Book contradict the rulebook, when the rule book make no reference to the timing of the out call?

WWTB did say that Carl had addressed the issue, but actually Carl didn't. Instead he commented on the Case Book ruling for coaches interference when the ball was already dead. It's odd that you don't remember-- he made the comment in a reply to you!
Quoting Carl:
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.

So far as I know Carl hasn't proferred an opinion on the timing of the out for coach's interference during a live ball, or whether the Case Book is right or wrong.

Dave Reed

I'm not waiting for Carl to grant us his opinion. The Rule Book states that it is a delayed dead ball in Fed and NCAA. Why do you need Carl to tell you if that is satisfactory?

The Rule Book says that a coach assisting a runner is a delayed dead ball and states the penalty. The Case Book speaks of a dead ball play, while the Rule Book speaks of live ball calls. I've never argued that the rulings shouldn't be made clearer. Putting words in my mouth is never a good idea. I have argued that when it comes to making a ruling - about the play I first offered a week ago - we should rely on the Rule Book since two separate rules guide us clearly. When the Case Book references the exact play - not the case here - you can use that to support your call. The Case Book is not wrong, as you've implied. It is using a play that does not correlate with the Rule Book. There will likely be two separate examples given for future printings. The current one is accepted for dead balls and one that reinforces the delayed dead ball mechanic.

I thought we were supposed to be debating an NCAA ruling. I proffered that the NCAA ruling is not all that different from the Fed counterpart. One individual insists that it is not. More than a few veteran officials have told us how and why they would rule on this. Almost all of us are in agreement on how we would handle both levels of ball.

That good authority you speak of was mentioned two weeks ago..right here. It is not a secret that they will have to issue a clarification. The language will certainly change next year. This is the way that they justify their existence.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally posted by Dave Reed

How does the Case Book contradict the rulebook, when the rule book make no reference to the timing of the out call?

WWTB did say that Carl had addressed the issue, but actually Carl didn't. Instead he commented on the Case Book ruling for coaches interference when the ball was already dead. It's odd that you don't remember-- he made the comment in a reply to you!
Quoting Carl:
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.

So far as I know Carl hasn't proferred an opinion on the timing of the out for coach's interference during a live ball, or whether the Case Book is right or wrong.

Dave Reed

Dave,

I would hope the Fed would take care of the misleading wordings and discrepancies between their rule books and their case books. This goes for the whole book, not just 3-2-2 or 5-1-2, although these would make a good start.

Steve

[Dave Reed]

Originally posted by WhatWuzThatBlue


I'm not waiting for Carl to grant us his opinion. The Rule Book states that it is a delayed dead ball in Fed and NCAA. Why do you need Carl to tell you if that is satisfactory?

The Rule Book says that a coach assisting a runner is a delayed dead ball and states the penalty. The Case Book speaks of a dead ball play, while the Rule Book speaks of live ball calls. I've never argued that the rulings shouldn't be made clearer. Putting words in my mouth is never a good idea. I have argued that when it comes to making a ruling - about the play I first offered a week ago - we should rely on the Rule Book since two separate rules guide us clearly. When the Case Book references the exact play - not the case here - you can use that to support your call. The Case Book is not wrong, as you've implied. It is using a play that does not correlate with the Rule Book. There will likely be two separate examples given for future printings. The current one is accepted for dead balls and one that reinforces the delayed dead ball mechanic.

I thought we were supposed to be debating an NCAA ruling. I proffered that the NCAA ruling is not all that different from the Fed counterpart. One individual insists that it is not. More than a few veteran officials have told us how and why they would rule on this. Almost all of us are in agreement on how we would handle both levels of ball.

That good authority you speak of was mentioned two weeks ago..right here. It is not a secret that they will have to issue a clarification. The language will certainly change next year. This is the way that they justify their existence.

WWTB:

Wow! In one post you've confused Case Book ruling 3.2.2A and 3.2.2B, denied your own words of your Dec 5 post ("The Case Book (3-2-2b) is in error, as Carl and I have said already"), incorrectly attributed to me an implication that the Case Book is wrong, and finally confused Carl's words, quoted by me, with my own.

Leaving that aside, and cutting to what I suspect is the actual point of contention: I infer that you believe that a delayed dead ball necessarily implies that no out for interference should be called until the ball is declared dead. It's a reasonable assertion, but I find nothing in the Rules Book to support or deny it, and we do find in 3.2.2B an explicit counter example. So I draw the conclusion that FED wants the out called immediately.

For coach's interference
In OBR we have live ball, out called immediately.
In NCAA we have live ball (delayed dead), out called after play stops.
In FED we have live ball (delayed dead), out called when?
The existing Rules and Case books say immediately

Dave Reed

[SanDiegoSteve]

Dave,

Just so I'm clear here, if the Rule Book makes no mention of how to properly call this (which we agree, it does not), then the Case Book example is treated as the rule itself? So in this case, the Fed wants us to call the runner out immediately, even though they didn't bother to put that little piece of information in the Rule Book itself?

I have never seen coach's interference at the high school level in all my years of officiating, But I do need to know the correct call, just in case it happens in my next game.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Now, taking this to its logical conclusion, since the only set of rules in which the runner is not declared out until the playing action is over is the NCAA.

Back to the original query, why is the NCAA different than the others? Please don't anybody say "because it is", or anything that does not explain the reasoning behind waiting until the play is over to announce that the runner is out. I mean, he was out at the time of the interference. So, what's the big deal in not calling him out when he's....well, out?

I no longer make a study of the NCAA rules, since my association no longer has the college contracts. So, I call on the college guys to provide clarity.

[Dave Reed]

Steve,
I'm truly not an authority, but I do think that FED publishes the Case Book to help explicate the rules, and when the rules aren't clear, we use the Case Book. Reasoning circularly, if a situation is in the Case Book, then at least a few folks must have judged that the Rules Book wasn't clear. I look at it simply: the FED has published it, made it easily and cheaply available, and therefore expects it to be used.
Dave Reed

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

It's late, so I'll be gentle:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"WWTB:

Wow! In one post you've confused Case Book ruling 3.2.2A and 3.2.2B, denied your own words of your Dec 5 post ("The Case Book (3-2-2b) is in error, as Carl and I have said already"), incorrectly attributed to me an implication that the Case Book is wrong, and finally confused Carl's words, quoted by me, with my own.

Leaving that aside, and cutting to what I suspect is the actual point of contention: I infer that you believe that a delayed dead ball necessarily implies that no out for interference should be called until the ball is declared dead. It's a reasonable assertion, but I find nothing in the Rules Book to support or deny it, and we do find in 3.2.2B an explicit counter example. So I draw the conclusion that FED wants the out called immediately.

For coach's interference
In OBR we have live ball, out called immediately.
In NCAA we have live ball (delayed dead), out called after play stops.
In FED we have live ball (delayed dead), out called when?
The existing Rules and Case books say immediately

Dave "Don't let the facts get in the way" Reed"

1) What is the definition of a delayed dead ball?

I suggest that if you can't answer this then you
have bigger issues.

2) Page 29 in the NFHS Rules Book; 3-2-2 Penalty

It seems clear when the ball should be called dead.

3) Same rule and penalty

It also seems that the runner is declared out when the
playing action is over.

4) You are confusing playing action with live ball.

During a homerun a player must touch the bases as part
of the playing action. The coach may help him up as
covered by the rules. But what if the bases were
loaded and the player on third trips like I suggested.
If the coach prvents R2 from passing R3 we have a
violation of the rule. He is not assisting, he is
preventing an infraction from occurring. This is not
permitted.

You should try Ambien if you are kept up all night with this. Your conclusion flies in the face of the words on pages 29 and 39. They both say it is a delayed dead ball and the penalty is invoked after Time is called.

[WhatWuzThatBlue]

You'll notice that we've all moved on. I like the post at the top of this page though. Insisting that you know the rules is not your strength. Stick to athletic supporters, you have a nose for it.