3B Coach Interference Ends Game

[UMP25]

The rule was designed to penalize a coach (by declaring the runner out) who tried to give a runner a push toward a base or back to a base. It wasn't designed to punish a coach who tries to avoid a runner from plowing into him by putting his hands out to protect himself.

Marquez wasn't even looking at the coach at the moment the incidental contact occurred. IMO, Marquez blew the call by misapplying the rule.

[Publius]

watch the clip closely from :20 to :23. Marquez was not "on top of it"; he wasn't even looking squarely at the "infraction" when the touch happened (assuming it did; it wasn't clear). It appeared to me he ruled in accordance with a preconceived notion of what was about to happen. His immediate strong call notwithstanding, he did not have a good look at the play. My experience with partners has been that immediate and strong calls are as much a function of ego as they are of certainty.

I'm not saying he was wrong; it's an umpire's judgment call. He at best appeared to exhibit poor judgment.

I was taught to make the call if (i.e., "physically assist" means) the contact "enhanced or inhibited" the runner's momentum in advancing or returning. That certainly didn't occur on this play.

Tie game, bottom of 9th, 0 outs, R3: batter hits fly ball over the head of drawn-in outfield and ball lands safely fair on the warning track. R3 "high-fives" 3b coach before trotting home. If a touch is inherently illegal, Marquez has an out on this play. I sure don't.

[UMP25]

Some here believe that a coach touching a runner constitutes a violation of the rule in question; it does not. A coach needs to be actually assisting a runner's advance or retreat. The 3B coach here clearly did not.

[JRutledge]

If you touch the player you likely will get their attention. If there was contact this was a good call in my opinion. I do not have a dog in the fight, but can see how touching a player will assist them.

Peace

[BoomerSooner]

My opinion was that There wasn't any physical assistance. 3B ump came in pointing at the coach and made a pushing motion to explain the call. There certainly wasn't a push involved. The other issue is the Michael Young had already thrown on the breaks and to me it looked like the contact was merely a result of Young stopping and turning back to third combined with the coach putting his hand out cause he was about to get steamrolled.

That said those are all opinions biased by my love of the Rangers. What I think we could argue that is more facually based is the number of articles with quotes attributed to umps, coaches, players, etc that have said some version of "no contact at all, that's the rule". We all know that isn't the rule. If in the argument that followed the play any umpire said anything to the effect of "all that matters is contact", one could argue very strongly that an appeal is in order.

As a Rangers fan, would I love to see the game completed from that point? Sure I would. Knowing they're 8 games up, the cost of flying the team back to Minnesota for potentially 1 out, and the attention it would call to the umpires who bust their hump and have already taken a ton of flack this season, do I want an appeal? Absolutely not. But it does highlight the critical element of most appeals...if they had said judgement call and left it at that all is well. Explain something beyond that, you have to know the wording of the rule not just the intent.

[jkumpire]

Sorry, I believe it was a great call, as I stated before.

First, as I looked at the tape, the 3B umpire was looking at the play, how could he not make the call if he didn't see anything? You think he's making a call out of whole cloth here?

Second, in this case with all the yelling the 3B coach was doing to the runner, and the fact that it was still a wacker back at 3B, it seems rather obvious that even a small bit of contact would be helping the runner as per the rule. MLB guys get paid to make judgment calls and get them right; to me that is a great call by as great umpire.

Third, this is another proof that other than obvious misses like at the LLWS, replay is an awful idea; it only gives eyes a review of the play, not other things that give context to a judgment call like this.

[aceholleran]

I had no INT on this play.

Ace

[nine01c]

IMO, 3rd base coach backs away as the runner is approaching him. If there was contact (not obvious) it certainly did not assist the runner. The umpire is not looking at the coach, he is looking at the defensive player double-clutching and getting ready to throw the ball. His call was based on what he "saw" in his peripheral vision (his best guess of what hppened). If he really knows and believes there was an assist, good call. If he isn't sure or there really was not an assist, not a good call. I believe the latter applies.

[dfwump]

I dont see any abiguity here. "Physically assists" is clear language. In this case the 3B coach did not in any way physically assist the runner based on what I saw. There might have been contact, its hard to tell. It looks like a blown call all the way. Mis-application of a rule.

Mike

[JJ]

The value of this play for us isn't whether U3 got it right or wrong - it's the fact that a bunch of us "got in the books". That's the beauty of baseball for those who are truly dedicated. We all can be better umpires because of this unusual play. We all know that while looking up one ruling in the books, we all see a lot more items that our brains flag.

JJ

[Mrumpiresir]

I have a tough time ruling there is any form of assistance on this play.

[jicecone]

Basic umpiring 101.

Unless you clearly see a violation, play ball. Don't insert yourself into the game.

He may have THOUGHT in his mind and be totally convinced that there was contact, (which is not the intent of the rule) but, it is also obvious that he was wrong.

Your right, this got people to read a rule and it also demonstrated how not to insert yourself into a game because you THOUGHT, you saw something.

[BretMan]

I read about the play here before seeing it on Baseball Tonight. After seeing it, I'm in the camp that would not call interference. The touch of the hands was so brief and incidental that I'd be hard-pressed to call that "an assist". It looked to me like the touch had absolutely no bearing on the runner's momentum, path, effort to stop or return to the base.

But I'll also say that the "degree" of any "assist" is at the discretion of the umpire observing it and I know that seeing things like this out on the field in "real time" can give an entirely different impression than what you get from multiple replays from the comfort of your couch.

Earlier this season, I did have the opportunity to end a game on this exact same call. Bottom of seventh (last inning), runner on first base representing the tieing run. Batter base hits to outfield, R1 goes to third.

R1's momentum carried him past third. On this one, the runner and the base coach made full-on body contact. The coach then grabbed the runner by the waist, spun him around and pushed him back toward the base.

Now that's an assist!

I banged the out- game over. This one was so obvious that the base coach didn't do anything other than hang his head and walk off the field.

[Jay R]

Originally Posted by kylejt

Watch U3 closely, he's not even seeing at the touch.

That's my take as well. If you watch the 2nd of the four replays in the clip. You will see that Marquez is looking at the ball when Young and the coach come close (or touch I don't know). That's an awfully tough call to make in that situation when you didn't really get a good look at it.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by Jay R

That's my take as well. If you watch the 2nd of the four replays in the clip. You will see that Marquez is looking at the ball when Young and the coach come close (or touch I don't know). That's an awfully tough call to make in that situation when you didn't really get a good look at it.

How can you say that he didn't get a good look at it?

Watch the video again, he got such a good look at it, he didn't even bother to watch the tag back at 3rd base because it didn't matter.

Have somebody run full tilt toward you, have the runner take a turn, reach out your hand and see how little of a touch you can do and assist him to slow down or return to the base. It doesn't take much to assist. It's judgment play...some of us would call it, some of us wouldn't...neither is right or wrong unless there's an interp somewhere that states otherwise favoring one opinion over another. I couldn't find one in MLBUM 2010...maybe there's one in an earlier version of MLBUM.

Instead of going back and forth, on who's right and wrong...let's search for an authoritative opinion.