3B Coach Interference Ends Game
 

3B coach interferes for final out, Twins hold on - MLB - Yahoo! Sports

Anyone seen it or have a link to the video?

What A Call
 

I saw it after it happened, and the replays they showed did not clearly show if there was contact or not. However, if there was not contact it was very close, and the 3B umpire was in position to see it. He came up with it immediately, and sold it strong. Tough call, great call.

Unusual play helps Twins sweep Rangers | twinsbaseball.com: News

Here's the clip. Marquez was right on top of it. He didn't even look back at the tag he was that sure.

Cant say as I see any "physical" assistance by the coach aiding the runner returning to the base. Appeared there was a "touch" of hands but in my opinion, no physical assistance, which is necessary to enforcing the rule. I personally dont call him out for the coaches actions...

umpjong, I'm not sure that would be the correct interpretation of the rule.

OBR 7.09(h) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

How do you know for sure that the contact didn't assist him? That's why they call it that way. He reached to touch his hand...it's not like he overslid into him or something. Sorry, I don't think we're going to agree.

Watched it live on TV. Sure looked like they touched hands to me, but my immediate thought was that he didn't assist.

Could one argue that, as long as there is some tiny force exerted on the runner in the general direction of the base, there was indeed assistance? Or should the rule be interpreted more "ordinarily"--that is, there must be some significant noticeable assistance to call interference?

Related: Tschida's comment | Twinkie town blog | Notes from a 2001 similar case

I think your point above is exactly where umpjong and I disagree.

I'm stating that any contact (friction) for the most part is going to assist him in slowing down or changing direction. The rule doesn't specify how much assistance, simply assist.

Tapping a tagging runner on the back physically assists the runner without any due force involved.

This is why the first part of the rule is so important. It starts with "in the judgment of the umpire". This is why in my response of what I saw, my opinion was that there was no physical assistance. Others may have it and thats their judgment. You would have to answer the dispute, if you call the out, with the words something in the lines of, " in my judgment, the base coach physically assisted the base runner in returning to the base. If that is your take, I cant argue your judgment, but on the other hand, my response for not calling it would be that in my judgment, the base coach did not physically assist the base runner returning to the base. Tschida did not explain it very well, unless he was mis quoted as is probably the case.........

In a pro game? In a youth game under OBR, I probably LMAO on this one.

There would be no need for the "physical assist" in the rule if it was based solely on a touch. As I said before. if you can judge a physical assist then you can apply the rule. My opinion on this play is that there is none.

I think the rule is stating that a touch is a physical assist.

I don't agree with you, but I can see your point. I think your interpretation leaves to much gray area...but like I wrote above, I can see your point. At what point is there assistance? It doesn't say intentionally...just judgment...which goes along with what you've written above. We have different ideas on how we'd judge the play.

It appears that the 3B coach put his hand out to stop the runner and contact was made. Good call.

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