Interference by Coach

[shimes]

Hey, y'all. I had a tricky one tonight in a key situation in the game, and the coach was really hot. I think I got this right, but I don't know for sure.

Runner on first, nobody out. Pitch for a ball. The catcher snap throws to first. The first base coach is standing near the line in foul territory (maybe three feet away or so), in front of the bag. He doesn't see the throw coming, and flinches out of the way at the last moment. I see the first baseman go for the ball, but then he flinches and acts like he lost the ball, or that he thought he was going to hit the coach if he stabbed at the ball with his glove. The ball goes down the right field line, and the runner moves to second.

I called the play dead when I saw what happened. I went out to talk to my partner, and then I called the runner out for offensive interference because the coach hindered the first baseman's ability to field the throw. I explained to the coach that it didn't matter if he intended to interfere or not, the fact that the first baseman was hindered in his attempt to field the ball because the coach didn't move out of his way.

I'm looking at 5.08, where if a coach interferes with a thrown ball, the runner is out. Interference in the definitions section doesn't require intent--simply hindering will suffice. That's what happened here. The first baseman had the right to make the play on the ball, and because the coach hindered his ability to do so, the runner is out.


Am I reading that right? Or did I screw this up?
Thanks!
shimes

[BigUmp56]

I would think if he was stading three feet away you're going to need either an intentional act or judge that his willfull indifference to the throw caused the first baseman to misplay the ball. Jaska/Roder says that the act has to be blatent and avoidable to rule interference on a base coach for a fair batted ball or a thrown ball. Tough call to make on the Internet.



Tim.

[mbyron]

I agree with Tim. From what you say, this is not interference: if the coach is 3 feet foul, a snap throw from F2 that could hit him is an error. The coach is (roughly) where he should be, doing what he should be doing. He can't be expected to disappear just because F2 makes a lousy throw. I don't penalize the offense for the defense's mistakes.

IF this gets the case right, then you shouldn't have called the runner out. Live ball, play on.

[LMan]

The general rule is that INT with a fair batted ball does not need to be intentional, but INT with a thrown ball does. For ex, FED 2-3 states that a thrown live ball that touches a base coach in foul territory is alive and in play, but only if judged to be intentional is the INT penalty invoked.

mbyron and Tim are speaking along these lines.

[PeteBooth]

Runner on first, nobody out. Pitch for a ball. The catcher snap throws to first. The first base coach is standing near the line in foul territory (maybe three feet away or so), in front of the bag. He doesn't see the throw coming, and flinches out of the way at the last moment. I see the first baseman go for the ball, but then he flinches and acts like he lost the ball, or that he thought he was going to hit the coach if he stabbed at the ball with his glove. The ball goes down the right field line, and the runner moves to second.

I called the play dead when I saw what happened. I went out to talk to my partner, and then I called the runner out for offensive interference because the coach hindered the first baseman's ability to field the throw. I explained to the coach that it didn't matter if he intended to interfere or not, the fact that the first baseman was hindered in his attempt to field the ball because the coach didn't move out of his way.


The first base coach is standing near the line in foul territory (maybe three feet away or so), in front of the bag.

I am having trouble visualizing this. If the coach is 3 or more feet away then how can he be in front of the bag. In other words the coach is either "right on top of the play" or "away from the play" so IMO you need to clarify.

I explained to the coach that it didn't matter if he intended to interfere or not.

If the aforementioned are your EXACT words to the coach then he could have a valid protest because you mis-applied a playing rule.

Here's the applicable rule reference:

OBR 7.09
It is interference by a batter or a runner when:

(l) He fails to avoid a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball, or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball, provided that if two or more fielders attempt to field a batted ball, and the runner comes in contact with one or more of them, the umpire shall determine which fielder is entitled to the benefit of this rule, and shall not declare the runner out for coming in contact with a fielder other than the one the umpire determines to be entitled to field such a ball.;

Summary: Batted balls - No Intent required
Thrown balls - Intent required

There's a reason we need intent on thrown balls otherwise fielders would purposely throw the ball at the runner to get an out and the game would resemble a farce.

Generally speaking, the coaches belong in the coaches box unless they have to vacate in order for say F1/F5 to catch a pop-up. Also, it is customary that coaches are allowed to leave the box when a runner is approaching third base to either wave them home or give the stop signal, however, they cannot get in the way of a play.

Based upon your description, I do not know where the coach was when F2 made the snap throw so I will give 2 rulings:

1. If the coach was 3 feet or so away from first base (sounds like he was in or near the caoches box) and made some sort of effort to avoid the thrown ball, we play on. We do not "bail out the defense" for a bad throw and if the throw is 3 feet or so away from first base then the throw was bad.

2. If the coach was out of the box and in a DIRECT line of F2 and F1 and did not make any attempt to avoid the throw, then we have TIME, that's interference and R1 is out.

Bottom Line: IMO you do not understand the Interference rules contrasting batted balls from thrown balls. In one case INTENT is not required (batted balls) and the other case (thrown balls) we do. It's back to the rule-book for you.

Pete Booth

[blueskysblue]

"By the Book", the coach's box is supposed to be fifteen (15) feet from the base. If the coach was only three feet from the base, a case could be made that he was "intentionally" not where he was supposed to be. Calling Interference may be one way to encourage the coach to stay where he is authorized to be.

Being three feet from the base, depending on whether or not he was on the Home Plate side of the base, could put him inside the three foot running lane.

Keeping coaches in the box is one of the constant problems in all games (baseball, softball, basketball, etc), and is in my area most often ignored, unless a problem occurs. Then, the coach whines "you never told me".

[NIump50]

If F3 was on the bag to receive the snap throw then a throw 3 feet outside the bag is no more than an outstretched arm to make the catch, I don't necessarily see this as a bad defensive play or an error, if R1 had an aggressive secondary lead this could still be an out. The coach is obviously outside of his prescribed boundaries, which in my opinion puts the burden on him to avoid interference. And yes, because he is 12' away from his box, I do expect him to disappear. I agree with the call. I take the out.

[bossman72]

I'm on the fence, but more with NIump. If you think about it, 3 feet from the bag is just an arms length away. I feel the base coach is too close for comfort here. He shouldn't be that close to the bag.