NCAA Rules/ Coaches INF??

[jkumpire]

Had college wood bat league game tonight, looking for opinions. Probably it's a HTBT, but I always appreciate the insight.

R2, 2 out, count doesn't matter. BR grounds to F5 who proceeds to throw the ball away over F3's head. F3 lazily goes to the ball, which skips by him after it hits the wall and goes back towards Fair ground. As F3 tries to get to the ball, there is slight contact between him and the 1B coach who is desperately trying to get out of the way.

BR never leaves 1B, and as the contact happens, R2 scores, as he is running on the play.

Defensive manager comes to me first, as PU. I honestly told him that the sit at 1B is the BU's call. He talks to BU, we meet, and score the run and leave BR at 1B.

This is what we told the manager after we conferred:

1. R2 was at most one step from the plate when the contact occurred.
2. F3 was never even looking to throw home, even if no contact with 1B coach he's not throwing R2 out at home. He made no attempt to even try and get the ball for a play at home.
3. Therefore, while the 1B coach might have slightly obstructed F3 from getting to the ball, he did not interfere with the play. We kept the run scoring and BR at 1B.

Mgr. did not like it, but the next guy singled him in anyway, so no harm, no foul.

Obviously we could have put R2 back on 3B, but just as clearly we have no out on the play.

Comments?

[UmpTTS43]

Unless you deem that the OC intentionally interfered, you have nothing. I don't have the NCAA rule book handy, but I believe it falls in line with OBR.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Unless you deem that the OC intentionally interfered, you have nothing. I don't have the NCAA rule book handy, but I believe it falls in line with OBR.

I agree.

When the coach comes out to talk to you...consider telling him to ask your partner, "he had a great look at that play" I've read before that we don't want to say "it wasn't my call" or "it was my partner's call"

just something to think about

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I've read before that we don't want to say "it wasn't my call" or "it was my partner's call"

It's just the opposite. If a coach comes to me on something my partner called, I will send him to my partner to discuss it. And if the coach attempts to go to my partner on my call, I will intercept him. "That's my call coach. You need to talk to me."

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

It's just the opposite. If a coach comes to me on something my partner called, I will send him to my partner to discuss it. And if the coach attempts to go to my partner on my call, I will intercept him. "That's my call coach. You need to talk to me."

I think we're saying the same thing, you just said it better.

[mbyron]

JK, I think you got it right. As long as the base coach is trying to get out of the way, he's not liable to be called for interference. That's a judgment call, of course, but it seems you had no trouble making it.

Since base coaches are allowed on the field, there has to be some leeway when it comes to applying INT rules to them.

[jkumpire]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I agree.

When the coach comes out to talk to you...consider telling him to ask your partner, "he had a great look at that play" I've read before that we don't want to say "it wasn't my call" or "it was my partner's call"

just something to think about

ON most things you are totally right. And that is what i normally try to do. But in this case it is clearly the BU's call, he's got everything, and I have R2 to look after. My exact quote was something like: "D*****, I'm sorry but the play at 1B is something you will have to talk with my partner about."

"Is it okay I talk to him?"

"Sure."

But communication skills are always something I need to improve on; during a game I get so excited and motivated to do a good job and get calls right I don't explain myself as well as I should. Thanks for the thought.

[MD Longhorn]

I think the only place you went wrong here was the explanation. None of what you said was relevant. Even if some of the things you told him had not been true, the call would have been the same. The reason this is not a violation of any sort is that the coach would have had to interfere ON PURPOSE - he didn't. No call. That's all - the rest just muddies the issue.