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.

[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

[ozzy6900]

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!

[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]

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