Visiting HC crosses the Chalk line

[charliej47]

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.

[mcrowder]

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

[sargee7]

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by sargee7

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

[blueump]

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!

[LMan]

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

Originally Posted by charliej47

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.

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.

[blueump]

Originally Posted by LMan

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?

[Eastshire]

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.

[mcrowder]

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.

[sargee7]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[bluezebra]

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

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

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

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by CoachJM

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.)

[BigUmp56]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.

[David B]

Originally Posted by mcrowder

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.)

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