Of course, if you rule that this was not assistance, then you have no INT, no conflicting violations, and nothing interesting to add to a thread about conflicting violations. ;)

That's not to say you're wrong -- it's a judgment call whether the coach "assisted" BR in this play.

I didn't have it as a MiLb'er.

I admit that the professional interpretations have continued to evolve after I left the game. If they have such an interpretation now, then I would have to concede that that would be an authoritative cite.

However, absent that, I maintain my prior analysis.

I wonder if those MiLB umpires you talked to were referencing an official (PBUC) interpretation, or whether they were doing their own independent analysis...much like us lowly amateurs are doing in this thread. :)

Information? In the end, the only information they would have is someone sitting at the top of the food chain "randomly" decided that this was the way they were going to handle it.

I agree with MLB on this. Without the OBS, there would be no interference by the coach. Also, because of the OBS, the runner is under protection. In this case, the protection may have been to 2nd base.

I would also have a short "informational" with the coach about his actions.

Yes he is under protection, but he must run the bases legally.

The way I see it, the comparision to missing a base is far different. A missed base can be the DIRECT RESULT of INT.

If the OBS knocked the runner into the coach which allowed the runner to stay up right and not fall over, perhaps we could use this missed base theory.

Here, we have two separate independent events. Take the INT.

If the runner continued to 2nd after OBS and MC F4, do we ignore MC because after all, it wouldn't have even been close if F3 hadn't OBS? Heck no.

It is a conundrum though... chicken or egg?

Any chance you or anybody else who has it could repost the video?