Visiting HC crosses the Chalk line

[btdt]

Coach JM
Coach is supposed to be in dug out.
I see no way to justify him being on the field.
This is not liberal Democrat politics, if it feels good do it, rules are made for those of lesser stature.
Coach on the field dead ball.
It appears when he entered the field play was relaxed, and not continuing action. Dead ball eject the coach, award bases is far easier to justify than making a feel good ruling and allowing the coach to stay. The defense has to pay a price for the situation created by the coach.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by btdt

The defense has to pay a price for the situation created by the coach.

Just curious, not to beat a dead horse...but exactly what part of the "play", what part of the runners attempting to steal, what part of the "situation" was "created" by the defensive coach being in live ball territory?

I agree, he should not be there.

I agree, he should be either restricted or ejected.

But he had absolutely no bearing on the play. He didn't contact a player. He didn't get hit with a ball. He didn't even verbally interfere with a player. The coach should pay the price, not the players. Let them play the game!

[UmpJM]

ozzy,

Actually, defensive coaches are not allowed to be in LBT, notice I said LBT, not "fair" territory, when the ball is live and a play is in progress. Says so right in the rules: 3-3-1a & j. No distinction between fair & foul.

Now, if any of the offensive players reacted to the moron coach's yelling "TIME" as he stepped into fair territory, I think the umpire has a legitimate basis for treating it as Obstruction. But he still shouldn't kill the play until it's over. None of the things in Fed Rule 5 that cause the ball to become dead have happened.

Awarding the R2 (who was thrown out at 3B & probably would have been with or wothout the coach's antics) home is BS, incorrect, and protestable.

I completely agree in regard to the eject.

JM

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by btdt

Coach JM
Coach is supposed to be in dug out.
I see no way to justify him being on the field.

I wholeheartedly agree, and I can't see anyway to justify it either.

This is not liberal Democrat politics, if it feels good do it, rules are made for those of lesser stature.

Nor is it conservative Republican politics, if I want to go ahead and do it, regardless of what the Constitution says, even if it gets our young men & women killed and makes our nation a pariah. But lets not turn this into a political debate, eh?

Coach on the field dead ball.

That's where you lost me. All the rule codes I'm familiar with have rules for dealing with someone being on the field who is not supposed to be. None of them say you immediately kill the play in progress. Especially if he doesn't touch the ball or otherwise alter the course of the play. Could you please provide a cite of the rule that backs your assertion.

It appears when he entered the field play was relaxed, and not continuing action.

Not sure what play you're talking about, but I was referring to the one in the OP where the runner was in the process of stealing 3B as the Coach stepped into fair territory. To me, that's not "relaxed".

Dead ball eject the coach, award bases is far easier to justify than making a feel good ruling and allowing the coach to stay. The defense has to pay a price for the situation created by the coach.

I'm certainly with you on ejecting the Coach. However, I concur with Blueump that awards would be dependent on whether the coach actually affected the play.

The job of the umpire is not to "make up punishments" when one team does something he doesn't like. The umpire's job is to apply the penalties specified in the rules when an infraction occurs. The rules say "the price to be paid" is the Coach gets ejected. If the coach's actions did not affect the course of play, there are no bases to be awarded.

I think allowing the Coach to stay would be a "feel bad" ruling. Erroneously awarding bases gives the moron (or his replacement) the opportunity to protest. I'm not giving it to him.

JM

[LMan]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

However, I concur with Blueump that awards would be dependent on whether the coach actually affected the play.

This could be justified if, for example, a runner who (judgment) would have safely made a base - instead slowed/stopped running due to the unusual appearance of a screaming defensive coach 10 feet away in fair ground, and was subsequently tagged out

[UmpJM]

LMan,

Exactly! That would be a perfectly proper and reasonable ruling.

And don't forget to toss the Coach when the play is over!

JM

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SAump

Who do you think you are? Don't come off sounding like a pompous donkey by adding these words because it would complicate issues. There are many others words to choose such as, "Coach, I'll handle it," or "Coach, please return to your dugout." Don't be gving the OC advice like such a wise guy either. He will not appreciate being told to do it. If you persist in talking to coaches in this manner, you better hope they plan on playing on your field if you want to umpire there again.

The last time I heard an umpire refer to "his" field, the home coach responded with, "YOUR field? Good. Your field needs to be mowed and lined before Saturday's tournament."