A different take

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

Angel made up a rule.

Reading OBR 7.09(h), it sure looks like he did.

[SAump]

That would clear up the situation. My opinion is the umps goofed.

Impede the defense is hard to interpret when there is no ball in the catcher's hand. I have no interference. Now if the ball was bounding toward the plate, then Pudges action may be regarded as interference. The first baseman made no attempt to make a play on the runner by holding onto the ball, no interference.

The coach cannot touch a player. The players can touch and often do when they run into each other on the baseline and one pushes the other toward one of the bases. I have been told that if a player is injured while running the bases, his baserunning teammate can pick him up and carry him home as long as he does not pass.

(e) Any batter or runner who has just been put out, or any runner who has just scored,
hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner. Such runner shall
be declared out for the interference of his teammate;

[callstrikes]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

grey...It was a touch for sure. Rodriguez grabbed Morgan with two hands (his right hand was around his waist) and then he pushed him toward HP.

Bill Ladson writing on MLB.com confirms that Angel Hernandez made the call.
Morgan out as a result on Rodriguez assisting the runner (Morgan).

Has anyone heard from Angel Hernandez? Writing on MLB.com for Washington does not confirm it for me. People have been stating or speculating that Rodriquez assisted the runner. Where in the rules is that illegal? He was practically carried back to the plate, but what rule did Mr. Ladson site? He said this, he said that, but what is the rule?
Also, comparing this play with another in which the catcher had a partial block of the plate, is like comparing Horseshoes to hand grenades. In this play the catcher was a step up the first baseline with his back to the runner. The runner had to go out of his way to contact the catcher, thus missing home. I have no idea what happened officially, but I do know that an apology was issued to Tony LaRusa about the contact.

[callstrikes]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

7.09(e) covers it nicely, IMO.

They added "runner who has scored" to this rule in the past few years. Did the scoring runner impede the defense? Well, I would say so, yes. Without Rodriguez grabbing Morgan and shoving him back towards the plate, Morgan doesn't retouch and there's a possibility of an appeal.

As far as the collision goes, that's a big fat nothing.

I don't need to look at the book to know that 7.09 (e) concerns interference on a BATTED ball. If they added what you say they did to rule concerning interference in a double play situation I'd like to see it quoted.

[umpjim]

"7.09(e) covers it nicely, IMO.

They added "runner who has scored" to this rule in the past few years. Did the scoring runner impede the defense? Well, I would say so, yes. Without Rodriguez grabbing Morgan and shoving him back towards the plate, Morgan doesn't retouch and there's a possibility of an appeal.

As far as the collision goes, that's a big fat nothing"



That's a stretch. I could buy it but I don't. I am surprised that Angel Hernandez picked up on that change since his last rules mishap. I guess they told Angel he better be reading the rule book and he did. Let's go parsing "impede". BTW, did he place the remaining runner as required under the INT rule?

As far as the collision, it won't be a big fat nothing next time. The big boys can police themselves but this one should have been called as USC.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

7.09(e) covers it nicely, IMO.

They added "runner who has scored" to this rule in the past few years. Did the scoring runner impede the defense? Well, I would say so, yes. Without Rodriguez grabbing Morgan and shoving him back towards the plate, Morgan doesn't retouch and there's a possibility of an appeal.

As far as the collision goes, that's a big fat nothing.

I thought so also, then talked myself out of it. I didn't see what Rodriguez did as impeding the defense. Of course I'm being narrow in my definition of impede, relative to 7.09(e). But that has to be what Hernandez applied because 7.09(h) is the "wrong fit."

Agree on the collision part.
FWIW: Ringlemann did call both LaRussa and Anderson and apologized for Morgan's actions. Told them it was being handled with Morgan internally.
LaRussa said he was fine with it after talking to Ringelmann.
(Reported on the Nats MLB.com site.)

[greymule]

grey...It was a touch for sure. Rodriguez grabbed Morgan with two hands (his right hand was around his waist) and then he pushed him toward HP.

Most definitely. That's why Morgan was called out. I was just wondering about a general case: whether OBR, like Fed, considers a touch on the shoulder to get the runner's attention to tell him to touch the base to be a physical assist. Or does it have to be an actual shove or something.

For those arguing for USC, you are talking about a penalty that can be applied in Fed, but OBR has not codified USC the way Fed has. Of course, the umpire can eject somebody if he judges the player deserved it, but he can't call a runner out for crashing the way he can in Fed.

Morgan was called out because a player who was not a runner physically assisted him to the plate during a play with, as Evans says, "urgency." I know that the rule mentions only the 3B and 1B coaches, but if it applies to them then it has to apply to others not engaged in the action on the field. Obviously the offensive manager can't run out of the dugout and push a runner back to 3B, and a runner who has scored can't physically assist, either.

I agree with RichMSN that the collision is nothing. But I'll go with 7.09(h).

[umpjim]

"LaRussa said he was fine with it after talking to Ringelmann."

Uh, did LaRussa say where Morgan was gonna get hit and Ringelman said he's gonna stay in there and take it?

What's the PU to do? This guy's gotta get hit. No warning. That's it. After he gets hit no stuff happens with either team.

IMHO the very rare USC (in MLB) call and eject might have been a better way to go.

[umpjim]

Greymule, Angel Hernadez could not tell you what rule he used.

[greymule]

Angel Hernadez could not tell you what rule he used.

You're probably right about that. Nevertheless, "impeding the defense" is too long a stretch, and the out call came well after the "collision," which couldn't generate an out call anyway. The only possibility is 7.09(h), and we'll have to see whether a rule that specifically identifies the base coaches can be assumed to extend to other members of the offensive team as well.

[umpjong]

With no play being made on Morgan, that shoots down 7.09e for me, and the other rule specifically names the 1st and 3rd base coaches. It would have been just as easy to use the term any offensive team member. I dont think you can include players (unless they are coaching third or first of course) in this rule since it is so specific. Also in regards to 7.09e had there been a throw coming in from the first baseman I still would not consider this as hindering or impeding the defense. Rodriguez would have got the same result (maybe not as quickly) if he had just screamed/yelled and pointed for Morgan to go back. There is a difference in physical and verbal but in this case it would have the same effect on the ability of the defense to make the play. I think we would be reading a lot into the written rule to enforce either situation.

I also have seen players on the base paths who physically pushed, and even put up a hand(touching him) to stop a retreating runner and didnt have a problem with it.

Just my opinion at this late hour of the night.........
We shall see if MLB says anything on the issue.......

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by umpjim

"LaRussa said he was fine with it after talking to Ringelmann."

Uh, did LaRussa say where Morgan was gonna get hit and Ringelman said he's gonna stay in there and take it?

What's the PU to do? This guy's gotta get hit. No warning. That's it. After he gets hit no stuff happens with either team.

IMHO the very rare USC (in MLB) call and eject might have been a better way to go.

To quote LaRussa from the story that appeared on MB.com. "[Morgan] had a brain cramp. I appreciate the way they handled it. They handled it internally, and they made it clear that it was a mistake. The Nats did what they had to do to defuse it. Guys make mistakes. I made it a point not to say anything about it after the game. I didn't say a word.

They won't be throwing at anyone. If the Nats did not "[do] what they had to do to defuse it", then it would have been a different story; and rest assured LaRussa would have made it a point to say something about it after the game.

[greymule]

From the letter of the rules, we know that (1) a 1B or 3B coach cannot physically assist a runner, and (2) another runner can physically assist a runner.

So let's examine a case that falls into neither category. What if a runner trips coming home and a player from his dugout runs out, helps the runner up, and pushes him across home plate just before the ball arrives? What if the batboy assists the runner in such a way? The trainer?

Is there a rule that prohibits such action?

The usual reference books apparently have nothing on this (or assistance by a runner who has been put out), perhaps because if coaches can't assist a runner, it's obvious that other members of the offense can't, either.

Originally, the rule applied only to the 3B coach. It was later extended to include the 1B coach. I suspect that the rulesmakers simply never imagined anyone else assisting a runner.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by callstrikes

A runner should be ejected at ant age or level when he lowers his shoulder into the back of a fielder not holding the ball. Really very simple. The following actions are a smokescreen.

To Callstrikes: Please stop. To any young umpire that doesn't know any better: Don't believe a letter of a word of anything CS has said so far.

[GA Umpire]

While I know the rule specifically identifies base coaches, it seems it was applied like this:

Any non-players/non-live runners cannot assist the runner. If they physically assist the runner, then that runner is out.

It's too bad things like this don't get published for all to see and understand why it was called. It would help explain the rule or eliminate any confusion for non-Pro Ball umpires. Even if it was a mistake like this may be, we would have a better idea of what we are arguing for/against.

Given the rules as written and no interp to support the out, I don't have any call on this play.