No coaches on field?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

You were wrong:

FED 3-3-1g-6
any member of the coaching staff who was not the head coach (or designee) in 3-2-4 leaves the vicinity of the dugout or coaching box dispute a judgment call by an umpire,

When assistant is tossed or benched the HC is benched. When the HC is tossed or benched, the assistant is "promoted."

Here is the reason I asked the question. There is no such ruling that says this is not the intent of the rule. And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout. So the position that johnnyg08 took would be wrong if you look at casebook plays that intend to restrict all coaches to the dugout if a coach violates the rule. Secondly, it is not automatic that you can restrict a coach anyway as the casebook says. There is no play that involves the actions of the head coach and what we do with the assistants, if we do anything with the assistants at all. And this rule is very similar to other rules in sports where the conduct of the assistants or people on the bench area are ultimately the responsibility of the head coach and if the head coach is not in control, the coaching staff is ultimately penalized. Even in one of the casebook plays, it gives the option to the umpire for the severity of the action before deciding if this penalty is appropriate.

Unfortunately for me I did not go to a live rules meeting and this was a question I had about this rule from the very beginning.

Peace

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout.

What orifice are you pulling this from? There is NO time where all coaches are restricted for the actions of one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Matt

What orifice are you pulling this from? There is NO time where all coaches are restricted for the actions of one.

You must did not read the casebook.

Peace

[johnnyg08]

no, i know what you're getting at...but if all are restricted, can the team put a player in the 3B coaching box?...sounds like a gong show to me.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

no, i know what you're getting at...but if all are restricted, can the team put a player in the 3B coaching box?...sounds like a gong show to me.

That could have happened with or without this new rule. If a coach was restricted (and there were no other adult coaches present) than the coach could not be on the field. And I have seen players used as base coaches often in my years and even at third base.

Peace

[Matt]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You must did not read the casebook.

Peace

Yes, I did. Obviously more than you have, too.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Matt

Yes, I did. Obviously more than you have, too.

Yep.

Peace

[UmpJM]

Jeff,

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...And in every other situation where a coach is restricted, all coaches are restricted to the dugout. ...

Could you please clarify? I haven't the foggiest idea of what situations you are referring to or where I would find a supporting cite.

Thanks.

John

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Jeff,



Could you please clarify? I haven't the foggiest idea of what situations you are referring to or where I would find a supporting cite.

Thanks.

John

Well you can look at all the casebook plays under 3.3.1 and it is clear that the rule makes it clear that the actions of an assistant can restrict a HC to the dugout. And the intent of the rule is to make the HC restricted and not allow a coach to be on the field if such action is taken under this new rule. And there are people that have said that "It would not be a good thing to have a coach not on the field" when the rule is clear that is the result if this rule is violated.

I do think the rule is unclear on some levels, but it is clear to me the NF wanted this penalty to be severe so the HC could prevent assistants from getting out of hand.

Peace

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you can look at all the casebook plays under 3.3.1 and it is clear that the rule makes it clear that the actions of an assistant can restrict a HC to the dugout. And the intent of the rule is to make the HC restricted and not allow a coach to be on the field if such action is taken under this new rule. And there are people that have said that "It would not be a good thing to have a coach not on the field" when the rule is clear that is the result if this rule is violated.

I do think the rule is unclear on some levels, but it is clear to me the NF wanted this penalty to be severe so the HC could prevent assistants from getting out of hand.

Peace

The gymanastics and gyrations you go through to try to avoid being wrong are incredible.

Tough it out big guy, you were wrong. Move on.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

The gymanastics and gyrations you go through to try to avoid being wrong are incredible.

Tough it out big guy, you were wrong. Move on.

I am a multiple sport official. This rule came from other sports (basketball and football have similar rules). In basketball the head coach is the only person that has the coaching box privileged. Once those privileges are lost, no one can use them. In football, if anyone violates the sideline rules, all penalties goes toward the head coach and can result in ejection even if the head coach is not directly responsible for the specific penalized act. Most baseball coaches I know are coaches from other sports. They tend to use other sports as their way of understanding other rules. And I am waiting for a coach a restriction when the rules are not explicit for such thing at this time. And if that was the case, then the interpretations should make it clear like they do in other aspects when this rule does not apply. Right now they claim mostly when it applies and even in one case play the situation is not dealing directly with an argument, but requires everyone to be restricted to the dugout (e.g. 3.3.1 Situation T).

This is like many new rules where the intent is one thing, but what they put in writing is another. The problem is people like you want everything to be about right and wrong and do not want to acknowledge that if things were clear, someone (not me BTW) would not have suggested that a head coach would have been restricted for something that the interpretations did not address. All the NF could have done in this situation was create a play where it was clear the assistant coach is not under their jurisdiction and they would not be restricted to the dugout and all of this would be clearer. Previously when a coach was restricted it was very clear what a coach could and could not do. In this case they are making the head coach responsible, but not really responsible if they do not fit these very narrow standards.

Peace