A different take
 

Baseball Video Highlights & Clips | Must C Curious: Morgan out at home for contact - Video | nationals.com: Multimedia

Saw this play on SportsCenter this morning.

The person giving the run down on the play was saying Morgan was called out because Rodriguez had committed interference by an another teammate. It puzzled me at first because as I watching the play, I was thinking why would Morgan be trying to make contact with the catcher in this situation as that would be interference on his part. Then they showed that Morgan had missed the plate.

My question is wouldn't this be interference my Morgan and not interference by Rodriguez?

Did you see the player grab Morgan, stop him from heading to the dugout, and shove him back towards the plate?

Out on the physical assist. (A runner who has scored is no longer a runner.) The umps got the call right. The announcers claim, over broadly, that "you can't touch a baserunner who is a live runner."

I don't know whether OBR (like some other codes) includes a tap on the shoulder to get the runner's attention. I always figured the touch had to be an actual physical assist like a push or a pull.

I couldn't get the video to run (problem on my end) but I did see it on Sportscenter. Despite what the announcers stated, he was clearly out on interference. The runner lowered his shoulder and hit the catcher who did not possess the ball and missed the plate in the process. This business of aiding or assisting the runner by another player is not backed up by the rules. Where do you guys come up with this? What rule do you use?
It amazes me that a seasoned announcer like Bob Carpenter would assume that an out was called because of a rule that doesn't exist. After all, it makes sense. He was redirected and assisted by his teammates.
As umpires, we should know the rules, or at least take a run at the rule book before speculating on a message board. Easy interference. The runner went out of his way to prevent the catcher from making a play.:(

callstrikes,

You have a real gift for irony. Thanks for sharing.

JM

Anybody know for sure why he was called out? I saw nothing illegal.

Morgan was ejected from the game.

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.:o

I might have had USC on the run into the catcher. No INT as there was no play. Why the out I don't know. It ain't INT by a teamate IMHO. While Pudge was no longer a runner and might be a teammate, Morgan also was no longer a runner. Even if he was I don't see where the rule could apply to this.

In 2007, Josh Phelps of the Yankees deliberately went out of his way to crash Kenji Johjima of the Mariners. Johjima had positioned his foot to block the plate, but the rest of him was leaning out toward the outfield. The arrival of the ball was not imminent; in fact, in not even sure the throw ever did come home.

Phelps could have scored easily but opted instead for an obvious unnecessary standing-up crash that would have merited ejection in Fed and NCAA, but in MLB it's a no call.

However, we all know what happened when Phelps came to bat the next time.

Morgan gave an unnecessary push, but it hardly qualified as a crash.

Morgan also was no longer a runner.

He missed the plate and could still legally return to touch it, so he was still a runner. If he had touched the plate, he couldn't have subsequently been called out.

Morgan was not ejected.
The official box score (MLB.com) lists 2 ejections. Nationals pitcher Scott Olsen (who was on the bench) and Nats first base coach Dan Radison.

Both were ejected on the same play by Rob Drake (1stBU) in the 3rd inning.
The play was an interference call by Drake on Ian Desmond who had bunted and was ruled out of the running lane by Drake and interfering with the throw by Nats the pitcher Lohese who had fielded the bunt. Lohes's throw went by F3 for a two base throwing error which (at the time) resulted in a Nats runner scoring.

I still don't see how that rule, if it was the one used, applies. Did Angel Hernandez call "time, that's interference, u - ur out, u at 2B stay there, (TOI)?
Or did the PU call it?
That begs the question; If I eject Morgan at the end of what I think is playing action after he crossed HP but before Pudge can direct him back can he still come back at touch HP to correct the miss?
How did we know Pudge was not still a runner because he might have missed HP also.

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).

Angel made up a rule.

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.

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

Did the Nats protest?
 

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;

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.

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. :D

"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.

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.)

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).

"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.

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

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.

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.......

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.

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.

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.

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.

+1

I have no idea if the softball rules allow for this type of thing or if they're similar to OBR in this situation, but here is how the softball umpires ruled on ESPN's "Best Moment in Sports, 2008"

YouTube - Softball player carried around bases by opponents

A Different Take
 

But this video is members of the defense helping the runner around the bases, not the offense helping another teammate. Apples and oranges.

In ASA softball, the offense could carry the runner around.

The ASA wording is The runner is out . . . when any offensive team member other than another runner physically assists a runner while the ball is live.

Then follows something a bit cryptic: Exception: After a runner has scored and missed home plate and then is physically assisted back to home plate, the ball is dead, the runner is out, and the run is nullified.

The wording was changed fairly recently from anyone other than another runner, which some people pointed out could include F6.

I know this softball video was the defense assisting the offense, but what I was trying to highlight was that the reason the defense carried the runner was because the umpires had (according to the video) ruled that if a member of the offense had assisted the runner, the runner would be out, which is what the original post was about. Anyhow, according to greymule ASA would have ruled Morgan out when he was assisted back to the plate. Does Hernandez do ASA too?

The NCAA rulebook has the similar wording, but in reviewing the 2009 Study Guide for NCAA that is put out by Referee magazine they have this rule interpreted as a base coach or another runner physically assisting him being grounds for an out. An e-mail has been sent for clarification since there is no interp citation of either a NCAA rules person nor a cite that it comes from MLB.
Will post (or JJ will) when an answer comes in. This is interesting since according to the study guide another base runner cannot physically assist while on the base paths. Hopefully this is not the authors own interp and we can track down the origin. Otherwise we are still where we are now........ Its unusual that an interp in this book is not cited by either a NCAA person or MLB.

Hypothetically, what would happen if a player (already scored) pushes a player back toward home plate, then realizes his mistake and tackles him, thus preventing him from retouching? Would that then necessitate an appeal for a missed base from the defense since the offensive player didnt actually assist the player?

I'm pretty sure that's a 10-yard penalty from the spot of the foul, and loss of down.

J/R states that "a player who had been a runner but has touched home and is signaling to a following runner" is considered "another teammate." However, in the two situations given (Section VI), this scenario isn't listed, simply because no "play" was being made on the runner.

Not to veer too far off into the "big ball" game, but...

That video made the rounds a couple of years ago, along with accolades for the defensive team for their display of good sportsmanship. But if it wasn't for the umpires blowing a simple rule, the whole thing never would of happened.

They initially told the coaches that the injured runner could not have a substitute to complete her baserunning award on the home run. That is completely wrong under NCAA rules and a sub should have been allowed.

Instead, they forced an injured player to be jostled around the bases, possibly aggrivating the injury and causing further harm to the player. Sure, it made for a nice touchy-feely heartwarming tale of sportsmanship on the part of the opponents, but it was a totally unecessary display resulting from a gross umpire error.

According to the video, the umpires gave the B/R the "pinch runner" option but the B/R rejected that option because then she would not have been given credit for the HR (only a single). The HR was her first and only of her career. So it's not quite fair to blame the umps for this decision. They told the B/R her options and she chose to be jostled around the bases.

Not true. It would have still been a home run. So they blew that.

They also blew it when they said another runner can't assist the injured runner. NCAA softball rules allow that, so long as the trailing runner does not completely pass the lead runner.

Care to explain how a leading runner is going to carry the trailing runner without having the trailing runner pass her? I hesitate to think the runner could carry her for 180 feet while walking backwards.

Unless there's space between the two runners, one hasn't passed the other.

Jim Paronto (NCAA) and Kyle McNeely (FED) both came back in agreement with the MLB call of out. Since the runner who scored is no longer considered a runner and he clearly assisted a runner who was making no attempt to return home, the runner is out for assistance.

JJ

While I think that's the "right" ruling, I hope they change / clarify the rule next year to match.

Completely means COMPLETELY. No overlap. I can't imagine a method of carrying someone where there would be no overlap.

I agree with that. It makes sense that is the "right" ruling, but you have a hard time finding that anywhere in the rulebooks.

Thanks
David

Regardless, if this was called and I was serving on the protest committee, I'd quickly deny the protest. Baseball has a finite set of rules that cover a countably infinite set of circumstances.

NCAA (Softball) 12.9.3 states that she is out:"When she physically passes (that is completly overtakes) a preceeding runner....."

Nerd. :D

Heh heh. It's the only reference I've made using my two math degrees in years. Glad someone appreciated it.

That might be, but if I "F" up the rule that bad where I'd even make a team carry somebody around the bases, I'm certainly not going to Smitty it up and wait for an elbow to pass the person they're carrying to "Ring 'em up" on a technicality like that.

Reminded me of the Hilbert Hotel...

Ah, a corner of my mind that I thought I had closed.

Nerd has been in common use for a long time now; it seemed to replace nebbish at some point. It's a bit strange to me that geek, given its original meaning, has today gained currency (is it Best Buy that advertises its "Geek Squad"?).

In Nightmare Alley (1947), the circus manager tells a down-and-out Tyrone Power, "OK, you can have the job . . . until we can find a real geek."

They quoted the same rule Hernandez did, didn't they?