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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Wow
 

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.

I had no INT on this play.

Ace

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for your opinions Ump 25
 

I appreciate knowing you at least read my posts!

First, the man is a great umpire. He's in the Show, and when I tried to get there, I did not make it. Unless #25 is your MLB or AAA MiLB number, I really think you need to assume he is a great umpire to even get to the show.

If he's incompetent on the MLB level, maybe, maybe not. But he is a great umpire to be there on that level, whatever we think of his ability.

I am trying to understand where the definition of "physically assisting the runner" has become a judgment call. When I look at the play: The runner is making a turn like he is trying to score, he very much overruns the bag (because he is trying to score), and he barely gets back in front of the tag. Correct?

In the middle of all that the 3B coach has some kind of contact with him, either light or almost none. Correct?

If any part of these items are correct, then why is the 3B coach and the runner getting such a wide leeway for not violating the rule? Any touch at all would be more than enough help to the runner that he had better get back to 3B; obviously he knows it's not a given he's safe at home. Add touch with voice from the 3B coach, and it just seems to me to be a clear rule violation.

When your wife or significant other goes by you and gently taps you on the shoulder, do you not notice and respond? Of course you do. If the 3B coach is yelling STOP STOP STOP, or BACK BACK BACK, and gently makes contact with the runner, you are going to tell me that the 3B coach is not assisting the runner physically to listen to his instructions?

IMO, you folks are parsing the rule like a lawyer who wants everything to be a shade of gray to save his client. The rule is black and white here, and unless you think there was no contact, there has to be an out.

Good call, great thread and conversation .

This confuses me. Can you cite a interp or a case?

Mike

Just because one is an MLB Umpire doesn't mean he's "great." Many make the Show not on their ability but for reasons into which I shall not get at this time. There are several MLB Umpires who are, to say the least, very poor umpires. Marquez is not among the worst, IMHO, but he certainly is not "great," as illustrated by this call. The fact that he was shown giving the pushing sign when explaining his call only serves to confirm what Steven Tyler above said: he butchered the call.

No he's not. Stop being such an MLB Ump fanboy or apologist. They're human; they screw up; and some are absolutely horrible and should not be at that level.


So if a coach attempts to get out of the way of a rounding runner but the runner plows into him, this is contact and consequently automatically assistance? Poppycock.


Emphasis added.

No, there does not have to be an out if contact is made. That's poor logic and an incorrect understanding of the rule.

It seems to me that the runner is applying his max braking effort before the touch. It's not like the coach tapped him to get his attention, he already had it.

It is asking a lot of Marquez to both get into position to see the call at the bag and at the same time get a good look at the wide turn the runner is making.

Wow again.

Nice 'fanboy' label. Weakens your argument though doesn't it? I disagree with you, and hold MLB umpires to a higher level of respect than others, and that makes me a fanboy? You are better than that.

Sadly, I disagree with you and My. Tyler. He did not butcher the call, and sadly all the rhetoric has not made a coherent case why he did butcher it. It all comes down to this: You believe there is a certain level of physical contact that does not help a runner in the context of that play.

But in that video we are discussing there is no context of the play. We hear nothing going on at the base, we have no great angle to see who is seeing what.

As to the runner plowing the the 3B coach, and getting called out the for 3B coach assisting the runner: Please, pack up the straw man and put him away. Nobody in their right mind would make that call, and we all know it.

I think he missed it, but I'm not going to fault him for it. My judgment was there was no assistance from the touch (I do believe there was a touch). Had the coach been a 6" closer there likely would have been assistance.

It is not unreasonable to judge this as assistance.

Difficult call, it could have gone either way.

Correct. That is why I prefer to use the term, "end of playing action".

Far from a homer. Twins fan yes. Please don't ever post that I would officiate or agree/disagree with an umpire's call different from how I would umpire it whether it's my home team or not. You don't know me. Deeply offensive. You may disagree with how I would've called it or how I interpreted the video (we obviously disagree which is fine that's the point of this forum) but it has NOTHING to do with the fact that I watch the Twins.

Is it possible that the "push" signal is a mechanic? I don't know if it is or not...certainly we're all smart enough to know and see that it wasn't a push by any means. What is the mechanic for that call, if that's not what Marquez was doing?

Careful, JEA has almost this exact case play stating it's an out.

No. Marquez used the push signal (football's pass interference signal) to tell the coach that he pushed the runner, which he in no way did. Because Marquez never saw what truly happened, he simply thought a push occurred. It did not; he erred. Big time.

Why? Just because they're MLB Umpires? They, like us, must earn respect. Respect is not bestowed upon someone simply because they hold a certain position. The person in that position still has to earn it. MLB Umpires may be the top of our profession, but they can screw up with the best of them just as easily as we can. Heck, some did so last post-season. In fact, two MLB Umpires who were scheduled to work the World Series last year got yanked from it because of their terrible umpiring during the divisional series.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you, but what is the mechanic for that?

Point and say "that's interference" I suppose?

Here's a post from another forum on the mechanic. Can anybody say with certainty or any other AO that this would be wrong?

The "push sign" is a standard mechanic that umpires will use to convey the coach's interference. It not unlike the safe off the bag mechanic or the out of the baseline mechanic. It is just a signal to communicate to everybody watching why he made the call.

I disagree. I was taught to always respect someone, and people lose respect with the things they do.

Respect must be earned. Just because a person hasn't earned it, however, doesn't mean that person should be disrespected.

As my father once told me growing up, "The only person who deserved respect died on the cross 2000 years ago."

Absolutely!

Not sure I buy this, if he saw enough to make the call, he would have known there was no push. Even a corner-of-the-eye view wouldn't lead him to think there was a push. I assumed when I was watching the replay that it was just the mechanic he was using to convey the call.

Therein lies the problem. He didn't see it.

Yeah, he made it up. Seriously.

No, it's a trick of the mind common to everyone, especially eyewitnesses of crimes. They truly believe they saw something that did not happen because their mind had a preconceived assumption. There is a reason, for example, that eye witnesses are often considered the worst kind of "evidence" to have.

Seriously.

So, the official 'eyewitness' to that curve on the outside corner cannot be trusted? ;)

If you're CB Bucknor, Angel Hernandez, or a few others, no.

You mean the next crew chief Angel Hernandez?

cognitive dissonance? I think Texas saw something that was there, but they perceived it to not be there.

This assumption is far easier for the eyewitness to make when the subject is black. You're from Illinois; you should know this as well as anyone, because the former governor of Illinois had the balls to admit that innocent people have been put to death or were scheduled to be put to death for crimes they did not commit, and he put a stop to it in his state. Meanwhile, the former governor of Texas signed off on 150 death warrants he admits he never even read. There is no chance in hell that all those people were guilty, but someone had to be blamed and pay with their life.

Eyewitness testimony is based on a person swearing on a bible that they're telling the truth. At all other times, our system requires proof. What a joke.

A rulebook tangle/untangle?
 

I don't oppose the messenger, nor the message; however, I often find errors in the various political, religious and racial translations. Everyone deserves respect, earned or not (such as the unborn child, the sick, the poor, the Polish, etc.). That same message is older than Moses and has nothing to do with the thread though. Why didn't the coaches protest so that official ruling could have been made by the two league offices?

I saw two umpires who read their rulebooks and then over-analized two different situations. Leave it to the rule makers here to make these two situations illegal by rule. I will continue to believe these rule interpretations were made up by a small group of umpires. That doesn't mean that it has been adopted by committee of people responsible for making the rules up. I didn't see interference here and I didn't see Pudge interfere. I find that the rulebook was CORRECTLY applied. The Nats deserved a RUN a week ago and the Rangers deserved another at-bat here, but the rulebook was used to prevent it. Does that ONE interpretation now apply everywhere, ala always interference on any contact?

It's the coaches job and the on-deck hitters job to assist the runners. It the teammates job to assist their teammates. The rule book states the Coach (or player) cannot physically assist the runner. I do not agree w/ those who state the runner is still a runner after he passes HP untouched. The offense could have beat the mess out of him if that is what it took to get him to go back and retouch. They do no have to let him enter the dugout undisturbed, either. I do not believe the Rangers' 3BC physically assisted a very abled and gifted athlete beat the tag. I saw the same player steal HOME earlier this season in a similar situation. In both cases, I saw umpires BAIL OUT the defense, and make a travesty of the game. TJMOHO. But if the leagues do adopt and support the rulings the umpires made on the field, I can support that too. My opinion is always subject to change with more information.

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.

Huh??? You can't be serious.


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