Obstruction and coach's interference video

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by NFump

But why did he return to first? The obstruction doesn't allow him carte blanche but did the coach's push really affect the play? Not to me (judgement) and by awarding second base I'm nullifying the act of obstruction which caused the "interference" by the coach. JMO.

If a runner is obstructed going to third and he slaps the ball out of F5's hand ala Arod, based on your rationale, you would not call the interference since he never would have slapped the ball out of his hands if he didn't get obstructed... hopefully you wouldn't call this

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by NFump

But why did he return to first? The obstruction doesn't allow him carte blanche but did the coach's push really affect the play? Not to me (judgement) and by awarding second base I'm nullifying the act of obstruction which caused the "interference" by the coach. JMO.

If the obstruction was the proximate cause of the "interference" then I think you can ignore it. For example, Br hits a ball to the wall. As BR approaches first, F3 suddenly stands right on the bag. BR deviates to the right to go around him and runs into / near the coach who pushes BR toward second. I'd probably ignore the pushing in this instance. But, that's not what happened in the original play.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

It's not judgment. Did the coach assist the runner or not? THAT'S the judgment and the video makes that answer obvious. The rule doesn't require that the assist "affect the play."

You can't justify a call just by saying it's a judgment call.

You can't? Define assist. Did he help the runner to advance or return? Neither, that's judgement. Was the runner trying to advance? No, judgement. Absent an "assist" (just touching the runner doesn't constitute an assist) I've got obstruction and he's going to 2nd. That's judgement.

Originally Posted by bossman72

If a runner is obstructed going to third and he slaps the ball out of F5's hand ala Arod, based on your rationale, you would not call the interference since he never would have slapped the ball out of his hands if he didn't get obstructed... hopefully you wouldn't call this

Here it wouldn't matter because as soon as F5 catches the ball and starts to apply a tag to the obstructed runner I'm calling time and awarding third on the obstruction if that's the base I'm protecting him to. If it's not then yes I'm calling the interference.

[GarthB]

Havaing the advantage of the video:

1. Point to F3, "That's obstruction"...ball stays in play 7.06(b)

2. Point to B/R "That's interference"...Ball stays in play 7.09(i)

3. When play ends: "That's obstruction...you second base."

4. "That's interference, the runner is out."

5. Eject as many as necessary.

[NFump]

Here's a little tidbit from JEA:

“Physically assisting” implies that the coach did something by touching the runner which improved that runner's chance of accomplishing his goal as a runner. In other words, touching alone does not constitute physically assisting. The umpire must be convinced that the runner is trying to get back to a base or is trying to advance with a sense of urgency.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by NFump

You can't? Define assist. Did he help the runner to advance or return?

7.09 it is interference by a batter or a runner when-
(i)In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

Neither, that's judgement.

Are you watching the same video...the assistant coache shoves him off the effing bag in the direction of second and the runner takes a couple of steps before changing his mind.

Was the runner trying to advance? No, judgement. Absent an "assist" (just touching the runner doesn't constitute an assist) I've got obstruction and he's going to 2nd. That's judgement.

Judging from the video...poor judgment. At the time of the assist the runner did indeed take steps towards second. Changing his mind and coming back does not negate his initial action.

[NFump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Havaing the advantage of the video:

1. Point to F3, "That's obstruction"...ball stays in play 7.06(b)

2. Point to B/R "That's interference"...Ball stays in play 7.09(i)

3. When play ends: "That's obstruction...you second base."

4. "That's interference, the runner is out."

5. Eject as many as necessary.

But the enforcement of 7.09i is to call the runner out at the time of interference (if you have it and with no play being made on the "assisted" runner) yes the ball remains in play.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by NFump

But the enforcement of 7.09i is to call the runner out at the time of interference (if you have it and with no play being made on the "assisted" runner) yes the ball remains in play.

You are correct....brain fart on my part. That's what I get for trying to post so quicly in between classes.

(See how easy that was, Mark?)

[NFump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

7.09 it is interference by a batter or a runner when-
(i)In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

See post just before yours.

Originally Posted by GarthB

Are you watching the same video...the assistant coache shoves him off the effing bag in the direction of second and the runner takes a couple of steps before changing his mind.

Yep. I can see what you mean similar to a BR turning towards second on a wild throw. Did he attempt or not?

Originally Posted by GarthB

Judging from the video...poor judgment. At the time of the assist the runner did indeed take steps towards second. Changing his mind and coming back does not negate his initial action.

Absent a "ruling" from a recognized authority we'll just have to A2D.

[NFump]

Viewing the video again, I can see that the runner did try to advance to second (he went further than I originally thought he did). But (you knew that was coming) can he actually be assisted to a base he was going to be awarded?

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by NFump

But the enforcement of 7.09i is to call the runner out at the time of interference (if you have it and with no play being made on the "assisted" runner) yes the ball remains in play.

I don't have current a rulebook handy, but isn't this the last sentence of the rule section?

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

What does no play being made on the "assisted" runner have to do with whether the ball remains in play or not? It's either dead or it isn't.

[PeteBooth]

Garth here is my thinking on the play.

First in this particular play, IMO we need to take a look at the ENTIRE play and not "piece meal the rules"

Example: We all know that a runner is required to touch all bases in order. However, suppose R1 is obstructed while trying to touch second base on route to third base. In other words the reason he missed touching the base was due to the OBS.

Playing action ends and the defense wants to appeal that R1 missed second base.

Our ruling - appeal denied because in our judgement the reason R1 didn't touch the base was because F4 / F6 prevented him from doing so.

In the aforementioned we do not "piece meal" the rules but look at the entire play.

Therefore, in this OP IMO we need to do the same thing.

Why!

If OBS was called in the first place, then most likely the Coach would not have assited the runner.

Therefore, after playing action ends and the umpires huddle. If in fact they decide that OBS should have been called, then the coaches interference should be ignored because R1 is awarded 2nd base hence no advantage gained as a result of the coaches assist.

Off topic a bit but now I think we can all see the benefit of having a replay to look at.


Pete Booth

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by Steven Tyler

I don't have current a rulebook handy, but isn't this the last sentence of the rule section?

PENALTY FOR INTERFERENCE: The runner is out and the ball is dead.

What does no play being made on the "assisted" runner have to do with whether the ball remains in play or not? It's either dead or it isn't.

In the case of 7.09(1), sometimes known as "coach's interference', it isn't.

The ball reamains in play, though the runner is called out. From JEA:

"If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible."

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by NFump

Viewing the video again, I can see that the runner did try to advance to second (he went further than I originally thought he did). But (you knew that was coming) can he actually be assisted to a base he was going to be awarded?

Yes. (you knew that was coming, as well.)

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by PeteBooth

Garth here is my thinking on the play.

First in this particular play, IMO we need to take a look at the ENTIRE play and not "piece meal the rules"

Example: We all know that a runner is required to touch all bases in order. However, suppose R1 is obstructed while trying to touch second base on route to third base. In other words the reason he missed touching the base was due to the OBS.

Playing action ends and the defense wants to appeal that R1 missed second base.

Our ruling - appeal denied because in our judgement the reason R1 didn't touch the base was because F4 / F6 prevented him from doing so.

In the aforementioned we do not "piece meal" the rules but look at the entire play.

Therefore, in this OP IMO we need to do the same thing.

Why!

If OBS was called in the first place, then most likely the Coach would not have assited the runner.

Therefore, after playing action ends and the umpires huddle. If in fact they decide that OBS should have been called, then the coaches interference should be ignored because R1 is awarded 2nd base hence no advantage gained as a result of the coaches assist.

Off topic a bit but now I think we can all see the benefit of having a replay to look at.


Pete Booth

Apples and oranges.