3B Coach Interference Ends Game

[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.

[johnnyg08]

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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.

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.

[bluehair]

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

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bluehair

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

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

...that is a great call by as great umpire.

A "great umpire" Marquez is certainly not.

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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

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.

[dileonardoja]

As umpires we always want to back other umpires, especially on judgment calls. But come on; u3 wasn't looking at the time the supposed touching occurred. He might have seen them get close together out of his peripheral vision but that was a horse crap call because he really didn't see the play. Confirmation bias and OOO in my book.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by dileonardoja

As umpires we always want to back other umpires, especially on judgment calls. But come on; u3 wasn't looking at the time the supposed touching occurred. He might have seen them get close together out of his peripheral vision but that was a horse crap call because he really didn't see the play. Confirmation bias and OOO in my book.

In MLB, there's no such thing as an OOO. Even the tiniest rules violation in MLB is what it is. You can't be "overly officious".

That said, this was a horrible call... not because it was wrong (it was) - but because it was guessed at and not actually seen - and even the strongest backer of the blue has to admit he was NOT looking at the action in question when he made this call.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

In MLB, there's no such thing as an OOO.

Huh??? You can't be serious.

Even the tiniest rules violation in MLB is what it is. You can't be "overly officious".

Oh? I'll only say this: Bob Davidson, Angel Hernandez, Joe West...