2 violations on one play.

[jkumpire]

Two wrongs don't make a right here.

A. The second we have OBS on F3, from what I see on the play IMO I am going to move the BR to 2B.
B. He returns because he has no idea what he is going to get, which is fine, he was offended by F3.
C. But everything has to change when the BR gets an unfair advantage not allowed by the rules when the 1B coach shoves him physically to 2B.

The second the coach put his hands on the BR to assist him, he broke a rule. It has to be enforced. There is no insulation from any rules violation penalty because someone did something to you.

If it was FB, we would offsetting fouls, in hoops it's a false double foul, in soccer you would have a drop ball to restart play. In Baseball, there is no way to balance each sides violations, you have to enforce both of them.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Two wrongs don't make a right here.

A. The second we have OBS on F3, from what I see on the play IMO I am going to move the BR to 2B.
B. He returns because he has no idea what he is going to get, which is fine, he was offended by F3.
C. But everything has to change when the BR gets an unfair advantage not allowed by the rules when the 1B coach shoves him physically to 2B.


In Baseball, there is no way to balance each sides violations, you have to enforce both of them.

But, that is not the way it is commonly practiced at the MiLB and MLB levels. I have seen this play happen and asked the umpires why the INT was not enforced. Their answer, paraphrased was "There would have been no INT absent the OBS. Enforce the OBS." Perhaps they have information we don't have.

[lawump]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Perhaps they have information we don't have.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by GarthB

But, that is not the way it is commonly practiced at the MiLB and MLB levels. I have seen this play happen and asked the umpires why the INT was not enforced. Their answer, paraphrased was "There would have been no INT absent the OBS. Enforce the OBS." Perhaps they have information we don't have.

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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by GarthB

But, that is not the way it is commonly practiced at the MiLB and MLB levels. I have seen this play happen and asked the umpires why the INT was not enforced. Their answer, paraphrased was "There would have been no INT absent the OBS. Enforce the OBS." Perhaps they have information we don't have.

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.

[TussAgee11]

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?

[johnnyg08]

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