Visiting HC crosses the Chalk line
 

FED rules, R1 on 2nd, 3 &2 on R3 Bottom of 4th one out:

F1 throws ball 4 and R3 starts fro 1st. The Visiting HC comes out and starts to cross the chalk line, I’m the PU and I say “Coach please wait!”. The coach crosses the chalk line, R1 is running for 3rd, and R3 starts for 2nd. The HC is 4 ft inside the chalk line and sees everything happening and yells at F1 to throw to 3rd and he does. There is a tag and the BU rings up R3. The home HC erupts out of the dugout like shot out of a canon and I’m yelling “TIME, THAT’S OBSTRUCTION!”

I calm everyone down and explain to the HC that I have called obstruction and “TO GET OFF MY FIELD OR GO HOME!”

I explain the to the VC that he obstructed the runner because he crossed the chalk line before I acknowledged his request for time and he did not have the “right” to be in fair territory.

I then granted him his time so that he could talk to his pitcher, he said he did not want it now and I stated “Coach, you asked of time, caused all this trouble and you are being charged with one visit to the mound, you might as well use it”.

The game settled down to a normal game and the home team won by 2 runs.
:D

I have no problem with any of this. Well handled.

I haven't done FEd for quite some time but I don't see how you got OBS out of this. Sure the VHC is an idiot and should probably be tossed but by your description I don't see how he OBS.

The "j" in Charliej47 stands for JOKER

Can you explain how the coach "obstructed"? There was no contact with any players, he did not affect any play, there was not even any "verbal interference". Per Rule 2-22 obstruction is an act that "hinders a runner or changes a pattern of play as in 5-1-3 and 8-3-2. According to your post, none of these things happened. By simply being in fair territory during a live ball you called an obstruction?

I totally disagree MC. I think this was handled totally wrong. I would have at the least given a very strict warning to the coach, or restricted him to the dugout for the remainder of the game, but his actions from what I've read, did nothing to obstruct anyone!

If you read the OP, you will see the coach did more than 'nothing' once in LBT:



I think here is where the 'verbal obstruction' theory comes into play. If the HC yells this from the dugout, no penalty. From 4 feet inside LBT, calling it is a punishment of stupidity. I'm not arguing the point, but I can see a logic to this course of action.

I don't for a moment believe this actually happened, but it could be turned into a useful hypothetical discussion nonetheless.

I agree, however, I still think you would have a HUGE stretch to call even verbal obstruction here. If he can yell it from the dugout, and you can coach from the box, inches from the chalk line, there is no way its obstructing from inside the chalk line.

Verbal obstruction is a coach or player yelling "watch out!" as a runner passes, or "foul ball!" when a player is attempting to steal. How does "throw the ball to 3rd" obstruct the runner who is heading there?

I also disagree with obstruction being called here. By all means, restrict the coach to the dugout for coming onto the field of play without permission, but I don't see grounds for obstruction.

Perhaps the terminology was improper... but if you don't see the defense gaining some advantage from having a coach perched in the middle of the field to direct traffic, then I worry about your judgement. Perhaps the more accurate call would have been not OBS, but instead using 9.01c to nullify the advantage gained by having the coach on the field - and advancing the runners just as he did when he called it OBS.

Same outcome without having to justify calling OBS and possibly a protest. That might work.

Coach crosses line during live ball action, AFTER being warned not to, he's heading to the parking lot. And award bases as if there was actual obstruction.

Bob

mcrowder,

I beg to differ. 9.01(c) is for things not specifically covered in the rules. The coach being on the field while the ball is in play is covered in the rules, and the penalty for this infraction is not the nullification of a legally obtained out and the award of an advance base to the runner who was legitimately put out.

If the coach actually did impede the runner's progress, by all means rule Obstruction, and award as apropriate. But if he didn't, don't give the jerk coach grounds for a valid protest - just toss him.

JM

A coach BEING on the field is covered. A coach issuing instructions and directly affecting play is not. (If you, as umpire, did not feel the coach directly affected anything, then by all means just eject ... but it seemed obvious to me that the umpire in the OP DID feel like the coach directly affected play.)

How did the coach directly affect the play any differently than had he issued instructions from just outside the dugout.


Tim.

Certainly a coach being on the field is covered in the book, even in a live ball situation.

However, the penalty for this infraction is not obstruction.

Thanks
David

Thanks. Good think I didn't say it was. What's your point?

Why are people only reading pieces of what I wrote independently of each other. Good grief.

At risk of repeating myself, since a couple of you refuse to read what I said ...

If the umpire did not feel the coach being on the field to issue his instructions during a live ball had any affect on the play, then of course the only penalty should be ejection. Nothing else.

But surely each of you can envision a case where having a coach in the middle of a play during a live ball would create an advantage for the defense. If you cannot, ignore the rest of the post. (If there's no advantage to having a coach on the field ... why don't we just allow them out there all the time?!?!)

It's obvious to me that the umpire in the OP DID feel that the coach created an advantage for his team by being able to be on the field to issue instructions, and directly affected the play. If that's the case, then your only remedy to fix this advantage is to use 9.01c - and in this case I don't think the O-Poster was out of line in his solution (with the exception being his use of the term "obstruction.")

I'll ask you again, Mike, how did the coach possibly affect this play and differently than had he issued instructions from the dugout?


The HC is 4 ft inside the chalk line and sees everything happening and yells at F1 to throw to 3rd and he does.



Tim.

Just happened to use your quote, but as you know my point as always is to keep it in the frame of reference of the rules.

Just for the readers who might be a little confused.

Sorry if that offended you.

Thanks
David

I see it this way...

either

a) you feel the pitcher would not have recieved the instructions had the coach been on the bench

b) the coach being on the field or in the dugout made no difference, the pitcher would have recieved that instruction anyway

I'm going to lean with a, because frankly the coach is a freaking moron and since I have to make a decision that could go either way, I'm going to choose to screw the team that had a coach standing on the field during the play. They deserve to be punished.

Its much the same thing as the banger at first where the SS makes a nice play in the hole vs. the easy play that is bobbled and made alot closer than neccessary, IMO.

And if there was nobody at this game and the pitcher definatly would have gotten the message regardless, then I may just eject because I'm not ending this situation with a "don't do it again". There will either be a penalty or an ejection. No way this clown gets away with it.

I know my words are a little harsh, but that's how I feel about this one. Plus I'm in a pretty blunt mood.

You really think both offense and defense are not going to notice/react to a coach running out and standing in the middle of the infield, pointing and yelling orders, while runners are circling the bases? :confused:

You may argue that the 'effect' was equal on both sides, or there was no 'advantage gained' or whatever, but I don't know how to argue that there would be no reaction by the players whatsoever.

Do coaches run out onto your fields during live action so often that it's blase? :D

Tim ... I wasn't there. The umpire on the spot was. And I keep saying... if HE thought the coach directly affected the play, then I have no problem with his remedy. If HE didn't ... then he should eject and that's all.

Are you trying to imply that it's absolutely impossible that the defense gained an advantage from having a coach on the field during a live ball, issuing instructions to the defense?

9:01(c)
Coach on the field/ immediate dead ball
Eject Coach
Award runners 3rd & 2nd as runners were advancing to those bases when Coach created dead ball by being on field
No discussion Coach/Hit the showers

btdt,

The moron coach coming on the field is not grounds for killing the play. Let the playing action finish and then eject him.

JM

Let me count the ways
 

1. The defense has 10 young men in LBT, how rare.
2. One of the ten young men has a driver's license, how odd.
3. This person was clearly standing "outside" his box.
4. The correct call was not verbal obstruction, it was time.

Now let me stop. I would have nullified the play, sent the baserunner who was tagged out back to his previous legally obtained base, granted the coach time and told him in a loud voice for all to hear, "You killed it." The coach deserved no better.

BlueZebra:

You hit the nail on the head. I had this exact same play two years ago in a USSSA Girls' 14U Fast Pitch Tournament. R3 on 3rd and the B walks on four straight pitches. The B/R goes flying down toward 1st while at the same time the defensive HC (she couldn't have been more than 22 or 23 yrs old) comes flying out of the dugout screaming TIME, TIME. She blows right through my stop sign and is half way between the 3rd base foul line and the pitcher's circle by the time the B/R was reaching 1st base. As soon as she crossed the foul line into LBT, I called time. I informed her she had committed obstruction and awarded the B/R 2nd base and R3 home, after which I sent the HC to the parking lot. Every umpire I talked to said that I handled the situation correctly. I do not see my play as any different than the one in the OP.

MTD, Sr.

MTD,

What did the coach do that impeded the runners' progress?

I don't know ASA rules, but in a baseball game, I assume you "judged" that, absent the moron coach's actions, the BR would have obtained 2B and the R3 would have scored. What on earth led you to such a judgement?

Also, why did you call "Time" when the moron coach crossed the foul line? In baseball, that would be in violation of Rule 5.10.

Good call on the eject.

I think the rest of it was really poor officiating and you gave the moron coach (actually, her replacement) valid grounds for a protest. I can't understand why you'd be so generous to such a moron. Heck, might as well just give her a "head butt".

JM

I read over my original post and realized I left out the part where the VHC had asked for "TIME" as he step over the chalk line and I had told him to "Wait please" while the R3 was going to 1st. and R3 was taking off for 3rd. :D

We could debate all day the after effects of the play; however, the bottomline is that with good game management this should not happen.

One of the things that we cover with coaches in pregame should be to remind coaches that they should be in the dugouts (other thread), and that when they want to enter the field they should wait for all play to be over.

This would and should prevent this type of play, and also the times that a coach might want to come on the field to discuss a rule.

Thanks
David

To be very honest with all of you, I have no freaking clue what the heck charlie47 is talking about. First of all, runners on base are designated as R1, R2 & R3. Batters are B1 and so forth. When B1 draws a walk, he is referred to as B1 until the play is complete. So to be honest, I have no freaking clue how many runners are on to start with or who the heck this R3 going to 1st is supposed to be either.

Next, the scenario takes place in FED rules and I really love how all of the posters start referring to ORB to back up their statements. Tim C. is right, the inmates have in fact taken over this board! If you need to back up your statements at least stay in the rule book that the scenario is placed in somewhere in your posts!

Aside from that (now that the medication has kicked in fully), the last correct thing that charlie47 did was warn the coach not to cross the foul line while play was in progress. Yes, B1 drawing the walk is still a play in progress until he reaches first or any subsequent plays cease.

The coach didn't obstruct anyone but he is not supposed to be in fair ball territory! Notice I didn't say LBT here? This is the case under every rule set there is. Coaches are not players - only players and officials are allowed between the foul lines during play. Please don't even try to argue this because it will just make you look like a real idiot. Coaches are allowed in LBT - how else would they be able to be in the coach's box?

So here we have a coach who did not listen to the umpire and crossed the foul line. "TIME!" All play has to stop - there is an unauthorized party on the field. If you do it correctly, no one will be moving except B1 and anyone that is forced to advance because of the walk.

"Coach, have a nice day, you are ejected". That is all there is to him - no "get off my field" or warning. He is done! Oh, if there was a runner stealing when you called TIME, put him at the base he was stealing to. If you are going to stick the defense make it hurt! After all, it was their coach who thought he was too good to wait for you to call time!

Better life through pharmaceutical intervention!

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.

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!

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

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

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?

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.

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".

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

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 :D

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

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."