JEA:

Professional Interpretation: “Physically assisting” implies that the coach did something by touching the runner which improved that runner's chance of accomplishing his goal as a runner. In other words, touching alone does not constitute physically assisting. The umpire must be convinced that the runner is trying to get back to a base or is trying to advance with a sense of urgency.
When a play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire should call "Time" and enforce the penalty. The runner is out and all runners return to the bases occupied at the time of the interference (assistance).
If no play is being made on the assisted runner, the umpire shall signal that the runner is out and allow the ball to remain alive. This enforcement principle permits the defensive team to make plays on other runners if possible.

Case play from JEA:

Runner on 1st. The batter smacks a line drive base hit into the gap in left center. The runner flies around 2nd and is determined to score on the play. The 3rd base coach is pointing for the runner to stop at 3rd. Seeing the runner is not going to stop, the coach gets in the runner's path home and is run over by his charging player. Both fall to the
ground. The runner gets up and barely gets back to the base ahead of a tag. What's the call?

RULING: The coach's action should be considered physically assisting. He probably prevented his player from being thrown out at home. However, the runner is called out for his coach's actions. The B-R returns to the base last touched at the time of the collision.

So if a runner rounds third and plows into a coach who's trying to get out of the way, we have an out? Your logic doesn't make sense. There has to be some kind of assistance by the coach.

Yes, I do. Alfonso, who has a less than stellar reputation, wasn't looking at the coach and runner when contact was made. Replays clearly illustrated this.

A "great umpire" Marquez is certainly not.


Simple, because he didn't. The fact that he had to create out of thin air this coach's pushing allegation only proves that Marquez had no clue as to what really happened, which was a slight touch of the coach's fingertips.

I've highlighted the key phrase here. The coach's intent was to assist the runner. Had the coach been trying to get out of the runner's way, trying to avoid him, and contact been made, the interpretation would have been different.

Watch the clip again, Marquez is wide enough where he can see both the coach assist...he then takes a couple of steps along with an angle to third base to glace at the play, then points at the coach and calls the interference...how can you say what he was or wasn't not watching unless one of you is Marquez, you can't honestly say that he wasn't watching by the evidence in that clip.

Ooo
 

When they make a video of over-officious baseball calls, this will play will be included...and a game ender...prominently included.

He's wide enough where he can see the play, but he didn't see the play. If he did, he never would have come up with this "pushing" allegation that he said occurred.

Indeed. It was a misapplication of a rule based on very poor judgment by an umpire who didn't even witness what he alleged had occurred.

Regardless of what he thought he saw, it was the wrong call overall.

I think this could constitute INT. His physical assist alerted the runner of what he needed to do. His assist wasn't physically assisting, but a physical action that made a runner aware. Touching alone does not qualify for coaches' assist, but it can in the right circumstances. Its all dependent on other variables that can only be judged by the umpire who is standing right there. (Hopefully he gets a good look at it too).

Can a pat on the butt be a coaches assist? Yes and no. Its all context for me.

As for this play, if I judged that the runner already knew he had to retreat, and the contact did not apply force to aid his return, I'm passing. If I think the runner had no idea, and the contact alerted him to stop and get back, even though the contact applied no force in aiding him to do so, I'm jumping on it.

My understanding is that if the coach is "reaching" for the player in an initial attempt to hold him up (or tell him to go), and contact is then made, it's going to be judged to be "assisting" even if the coach was by then withdrawing the hand and / or the touch had no / minimal affect on the player's actions.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

According to Jim Evans you're correct, according to some on this board who have more expertise than Evans, you are wrong. I'm with Jim.

I don't think there's any disagreement with that interpretation. I believe the disagreement is in the call at hand, where there are those who believe that the contact which occurred wasn't of the kind to which you allude or any other kind of assistance.

What a Twinkie fanboy. Can you honestly say he was watching by the evidence in that clip? When I saw it in real time, it appeared that Marquez was watching the tag at third as Young dove back in. His timing and mechanics looked like he was pointing at Dave Anderson for help on the call and then punched the out signal.

My initial reaction was that he had banged Young out at third when he appeared safe.

If you want to see a classic example of coach's interference, find some video of Mark Maguire hitting number 62. He is jumping up and down and clearly misses first on his way to second. The first base coach has to grab him by the arm to get him to return to touch the base. No interference was called by the way.

Marquez's call was butchered and the rule wasn't enforced properly.

I remember the Maguire play, and I remember thinking the same thing when I saw it the home run replayed over and over again.
However I also remember reading one of the numerous print articles about the event, that under OBR it was not interference by the 1st base coach for assisting the runner because the home run created a dead ball situation.

Not having access to a JEA, MBU manual nor having worked under game under the OBR set for many years, I'm only speaking from memory not fact. Can anyone help me out on the correct ruling for that play under MLB OBR?

KJ, the fact that it's a dead ball is irrelevant. A runner can still be declared out in such situations.