2 violations on one play.

[dash_riprock]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...02226258&hl=en

For the sake of argument, assume the B/R was obstructed (type B) on his way to 2nd, causing him to return to 1st.

My questions:

1. Is it assistance by a coach (INT) when the runner derives no benefit from the physical contact?

2. Can the umpire ignore the INT by the coach in "imposing such penalties, if any, as in his judgment will nullify the act of obstruction?" 7.06 (b)

IMO, the whole mess is directly attributable to the OBS. I have a hard time penalizing the offense for the subsequent and meaningless INT. Without the OBS, B/R would have been standing on 2nd base.

[lawump]

Dash and I discussed this for a few posts on another board.

Here is my take (what I posted on the other board):

What a third-world play!

First, this should be obvious, but there is no interference by the B/R on F9's throw home. For there to be interference on a thrown ball, the B/R would have had to intentionally interfere.

At that point, I, as the base umpire, would have been signaling "safe" and saying "that's nothing!"

Then, B/R runs into (I think) F3. Under OBR the ball remains live because we have obstruction without a play. I, as base umpire, would yell, "that's obstruction," and let the play continue.

Then, last but not least, B/R runs back to first base after being stopped by the obstruction. Then the ball gets by F2, and the first base coach physically pushes B/R toward second base. This is coach's interference pursuant to rule 7.09 (i). The penalty for this is that the runner is out, but the ball remains alive.

I would now call the B/R "out".

IMHO, just because a runner is obstructed, does not mean a coach can physically assist him. If he could, IMO, this would be in the rule book. And the rulebook does allow for exceptions to the rules due to obstruction.(For instance, it says in the rulebook that if a runner misses a base because of obstruction, he shall not be out on appeal for missing the base).

IMO, if the rules drafters wanted to allow coaches to be able to assist obstructed runners, they would have put in rule 7.09i, "a runner shall not be out as a result of a coach assisting him after he has been obstructed," or something like that.

Thus, I have B/R "out" at the end of this play.

In the end, Dash disagreed with my analysis and we agreed to disagree.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by lawump

In the end, Dash disagreed with my analysis and we agreed to disagree.

Lawump, I agree with most of your analyses, specifically:
1. No INT on B/R
2. OBS on F3
3. Let the play finish (no immediate dead ball on the INT by the coach)

The only thing bugging me is enforcing the coach's INT.

[bob jenkins]

I agree with Lawump on this play.

What's awarded is the "right to advance without being put out by the defense." The offense must still run the bases legally.

I suppose it's possible (I didn't re-watch the play) that the defense had the ball at the time of the coach's assistance. So, we could make the argument that the ball was then dead (for the obs award) and there wasn't any assistance.

[mbyron]

The award of 2B to BR on the OBS does not magically remove the obligation to run the bases properly. Coach's INT should still be called and enforced. When multiple violations occur, penalize them in the order in which they occur.

Think of it this way: imagine that BR was obstructed and missed 1B, and we're going to protect him to 2B. Are you going to say, "well, he wouldn't have missed first base except for the OBS, so I'm going to deny the appeal." That would be wrong, and it would be wrong because all runners must still run the bases correctly even if they're obstructed.

I'm with lawump on this one. Good call, btw: the ball remains LIVE after coach's INT.

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Think of it this way: imagine that BR was obstructed and missed 1B, and we're going to protect him to 2B. Are you going to say, "well, he wouldn't have missed first base except for the OBS, so I'm going to deny the appeal." That would be wrong, and it would be wrong because all runners must still run the bases correctly even if they're obstructed.

This came up at the Jim Evans Liberty Classic clinic last Nov. The runner was obstructed rounding 3rd, causing him to miss the base. The runner was awarded home but never touched 3rd. I asked if the runner would be out on appeal, since the base award does not relieve the runner of other baserunning obligations. Jim's ruling: deny the appeal - the OBS caused the miss of the base.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

The runner was obstructed rounding 3rd, causing him to miss the base.

I agree. But, there's a difference between the obstruction CAUSING the runner to miss a base, and obstruction, followed by the runner missing the base.

In the OP, the obstruction didn't CAUSE the coach's assistance. You might envision a similar play where contact between F5 and R2 causes the runner to contact the third-base coach. The assistance might be ignored in this play.

[Shmuelg]

Personally, I would rule as follows:

OBS awarded to the BR, giving him second base.

And that's it.

I don't think the push from the base coach was significant enough to warrant calling BR out. From what I understand, "physically helping" is like picking up a guy who fell, or something like that.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Shmuelg

I don't think the push from the base coach was significant enough to warrant calling BR out. From what I understand, "physically helping" is like picking up a guy who fell, or something like that.

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.