player interference

[mulb]

There are no outs in the bottom of the 9th in a tied game. Runners are on 1st and 2nd. Ball is hit to left center, the center fielder throws the ball wildly and it ends up near the dead ball area in the hands of the third baseman. He throws it home . I am by third base in a three man game. The first runner goes past home and the dugout empties. The problem occurs when he fails to touch home. The catcher is trying to find the ball with the whole team in his way. The third base coach rushes home and grabs the first runner and pulls him back to home. Obviously this runner is out. The second runner is standing about 3 feet to the third base side of home. The coach says he scored. The home plate umpire says she did not see him touch home because of the player on the field. The first base umpire said the runner did not touch home plate. We talked about what happened and what to do about it. Th ruling we came up with was that the first runner is out because of coach's interference and the second runner is out because of player interference. While all of this is going on the batter takes second base. The result is 2 outs and a runner on second base.
I welcome any and all comments on this bizzare play.

[bluezebra]

When the team rushes out and inteferes with the catcher, call "TIME" immediately. Then straighten things out.

Bob

[tgkuehner]

I think you only have the first out. As soon as you have the players' interference or the coach's assistance (whichever happened first), there is a dead ball and other runners return, unless you feel the infraction prevented a double play. However, that does not seem likely.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by tgkuehner
I think you only have the first out. As soon as you have the players' interference or the coach's assistance (whichever happened first), there is a dead ball and other runners return, unless you feel the infraction prevented a double play. However, that does not seem likely.

I disagree, Teek. Coach's assistance is actually a LIVE ball unless the defense attempts to play on the runner assisted. That is deliberately intended to allow the defense to make outs on other runners. Otherwise coaches would assist runners to avoid double plays, etc. I have the following:

• R2 is out on coach's assistance - OBR 7.09(i) by extension to home plate using 9.01(c)

• R1 is out for offensive interference by his team mates - OBR 7.09(e)

• Batter-runner should be returned to 1st base IF, in your judgement, he had not legally acquired 2nd base at the time of the interference under 7.09(e)

Hope this helps

Cheers

[tgkuehner]

Thanks, Warren.

I stand corrected. But now I will get it right if it happens.

[Jerry]

Warren:
Why invoke 9.01(c) when other rules are readily available?

All of the scenario is covered by book rule; therefore 9.01(c) would NOT apply.

If cool heads prevail; you can't call R3 out after he's passed home unless there's an appeal. The coach taking him from the dugout to home is not the same as a coach assisting a player to advance. The defense needs to take an active part in making that out.

As for R2 . . . unless an umpire has killed the play; he can run as far and as long as he pleases. Again; the defense needs to take an active part.

You could have an infraction for players coming onto the field, but that's "after the fact". Score the run unless some appeal cancels it.

Jerry

P.S. Third World situations mandate Third World solutions. This situation is neither. Think it through and rule accordingly.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jerry
Warren:
Why invoke 9.01(c) when other rules are readily available?

All of the scenario is covered by book rule; therefore 9.01(c) would NOT apply.

If cool heads prevail; you can't call R3 out after he's passed home unless there's an appeal. The coach taking him from the dugout to home is not the same as a coach assisting a player to advance. The defense needs to take an active part in making that out.

As for R2 . . . unless an umpire has killed the play; he can run as far and as long as he pleases. Again; the defense needs to take an active part.

You could have an infraction for players coming onto the field, but that's "after the fact". Score the run unless some appeal cancels it.

Jerry

P.S. Third World situations mandate Third World solutions. This situation is neither. Think it through and rule accordingly.

Jerry, you have obviously misread the original post. I also think that you need to consider the spirit and intent of the rules as well as their literal wording. Restricting your interpretation to either one in isolation is a prescription for error.

The spirit and intent of 7.09(i) is to prevent coaches from assisting runners to advance OR return to a base. It was just an oversight that the rule didn't specifically mention home base as it does 1st and 3rd base. I guess no-one envisaged either base coach running to 2nd base or home plate to assist a runner in advancing or returning to touch the base. (BTW the original scenario did NOT have the coach "taking the runner from the dugout")

I used 9.01(c) as justification for including home plate under coach's assistance in this case because the rules clearly don't cover that. Your insistance that only an appeal will suffice, once the runner has passed home plate, is incorrect in the circumstances. The runner has not yet left the plate area, and so may only be tagged out IF the catcher can gather the ball before the coach assists him to return to touch the plate. Check 7.08(k)Comment for clarification that access to an appeal is not yet available within the spirit and intent of 7.10(d), even though the base has clearly been "missed" by current interpretation.

The original scenario had the dugout emptying onto the area around home plate BEFORE R2 came home. That clearly brings 7.09(e) into play for that runner.

Jerry, I strongly suggest that you should "read it through" BEFORE telling me to "think it through". The actual sequence of events from the original scenario was:

1. R3 comes home but fails to touch the plate in passing

2. The dugout empties and players congregate around home plate preventing the catcher from finding the ball

3. The 3rd base coach comes down to home plate and assists R3 to touch the base

4. R2 arrives within 3 feet of home plate and U1 says he didn't touch home - PU says she didn't see it either way.

5. In the meantime, BR has acquired 2nd base.

Now that may well have been a "Third World situation" but I strongly resent your unkind suggestion that my logical, rule-based solution was also "Third World". Please leave the baggage behind, Jerry.

Have a nice day

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 23rd, 2003 at 04:18 PM]

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

The original scenario had the dugout emptying onto the area around home plate BEFORE R2 came home. That clearly brings 7.09(e) into play for that runner.

I don't know if I agree with your statment, Warren.
The original post states:

The first runner goes past home and the dugout empties.

While I might accept an understanding that the passing of the plate was simultaneous with the dugout emptying, I think your statement that it occurred before the runner scored is absolutely wrong. Even you seem to be disagreeing with your own statement, Warren. Look at the following sequence of events that you wrote. It doesn't seem to state the dugout emptied before the runner passed the plate---does it?

---

Originally posted by Warren Willson

The actual sequence of events from the original scenario was:

1. R3 comes home but fails to touch the plate in passing

2. The dugout empties and players congregate around home plate preventing the catcher from finding the ball

3. The 3rd base coach comes down to home plate and assists R3 to touch the base

4. R2 arrives within 3 feet of home plate and U1 says he didn't touch home - PU says she didn't see it either way.

5. In the meantime, BR has acquired 2nd base.

Looking at your stated sequence of events, Warren........
It would seem to me that the players interfered with the catcher before the actions of the coach (as you show it), by congregating and apparently preventing the catcher from retrieving the ball to make a play. With that said, the actions of the coach would be meaningless since the ball should have been declared dead due to interference prior to the coach's intervention. Due to the interference, the player most likely to be played against should be declared out and other runners returned to base occupied at time of incident.

So....who do YOU think F2 was playing against? R2 or R1?
My bet would be R2 since playing on R1 would be meaningless if R1 was the game winning run. He's obviously still in your "plate area" since the team is around home plate to congratulate him. Therefore, by your standards, he is not appealable but can still be played upon. Common sense would say R2 would be the runner declared out for the interference. BUT, that would mean that R1 would be returned to 3B and the BR likely returned to 1B.

Or do you allow play to continue after the teammates have interfered with the F2’s play?

---

IMO, there is information lacking from this scenario in order to make a judgment.
That is why I did not comment earlier.

Did the presence of the teammates actually interfere with F2’s ability to retrieve the ball and make whatever play F2 wished to attempt---assumably a tag or appeal on R2? If R2 was not attempting to return an touch the plate, couldn’t F2 still have retrieved the ball to either apppeal (by my standards) or play upon (by Warren's standards) R2 for his baserunning infraction?

Did R1 continue attempt to score and merely miss the plate when joining in the festivities? If R1 was considered as scored, then the action of the coach could not have interfered since R2 could not have legally been able to return to touch the plate---with or without the coach’s physical assistance. How could the coach interfere by assisting a runner in a running responsibility that could not legally occur?

While there seems to be discussion regarding the touching of the plate by both R2 and R1, when was time out declared? Did F2 have opportunity to attempt further appeal before time was declared and merely chose not to attempt, or did the officials declare time due to the presence of the offensive team and before F2 was able to gather the ball?

Perhaps a more detailed explanation regarding the timing of some issues, attempts made by fielders and runners, and actions of umpires during the situation might help lead to a better chance at an accurate response.


Just my opinion,

Freix




[Edited by Bfair on Jul 24th, 2003 at 01:10 AM]

[Jerry]

Warren:
Wow! You Aussies sure do take things personally. My only criticism (if you can call it that; evidently you did)was your solution of invoking 9.01(c) when there are perfectly acceptable rulings which already cover that scenario.

Sorry you took offense at the "Third World" comment. It was meant as . . . "when abnormal situations occur (which are not covered in a rule book), THEN extraordinary solutions should used." I didn't mean to imply that the events cited in the thread were abnormal at all.

The "think it through" admonition was intended as a generality to all officials; not as a reply to your solution.

I've always respected your thoughtful considerations and remarks; but also feel that there are other points of views and alternative rulings that could be acceptable in given circumstances.

Jerry

[David B]

I don't know if this is all that third world since so many umpires seem to let kids out of the dugouts now, but in the play I didn't see how F2 was interfered with.

If that was clearer then I think the penalties, awards could be pretty easy.

As for the umpires, its easy to simply state I have time and this is what is going to happen.

In my game since the offensive interfered they would get no leniency in any way.

I would give the defense all of the benefit of doubt and award or penalize accordingly.

The rules stated above would all apply or not.

Then there would be no more problems with the dugouts and the coaches would have them stay close until play if over.


Thanks
David

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Jerry
Warren:
Wow! You Aussies sure do take things personally. My only criticism (if you can call it that; evidently you did)was your solution of invoking 9.01(c) when there are perfectly acceptable rulings which already cover that scenario.

Sorry you took offense at the "Third World" comment. It was meant as . . . "when abnormal situations occur (which are not covered in a rule book), THEN extraordinary solutions should used." I didn't mean to imply that the events cited in the thread were abnormal at all.

The "think it through" admonition was intended as a generality to all officials; not as a reply to your solution.

I've always respected your thoughtful considerations and remarks; but also feel that there are other points of views and alternative rulings that could be acceptable in given circumstances.

Jerry

Please don't judge all Aussies by me - for one thing the others don't have certain posters (not you Jerry) looking to criticize every word they write. I probably overreacted. My apologies for that.

I agree that there are other equally valid points of view in the circumstances. I'm not sure I'd agree that there are alternative rulings in THIS circumstance, but I am certainly prepared to admit that I might be 100% wrong about that.

Thank you for not escalating my overreaction into yet another flame war. It is most appreciated.

Cheers

[Bfair]

Warren, please don't attempt to hide the subject matter by using your paranoia as a panacea for your mistakes. I don't wish to attack every word you write. I merely highlighted the self-contradiction within your post---which I saw as readily apparent---and the incongruity of your statement as compared to the original situation presented. You have recently mistated content from several of my posts, and this now seems to be becoming a repetitive problem within your writing.

While Teek was providing you credit for your detailed answer per the rules you cited, I saw contradiction to the rules in that you were seemingly applying a penalty for an action that occurred after the ball should have been killed for interference---per YOUR summary. I've seen you make such disagreements when others make such obvious errors, Warren. Is that wrong to do with you?

The situation as presented lacks information and remains a HTBT.
You are likely correct in penalizing the offense if their actions truly interfered with the play of the game. The offense was the offending party and should not receive benefit of any doubt that might exist. Still, I feel declaring 2 out may be a bit overzealous within the rules of the game.

---

An interesting point comes to mind, however, with the situation presented.

It appears R1 thought that R2 scored to win the game and abandoned his baserunning efforts.
What happens with base runners who abandon their bases prior to an upheld appeal of a game ending play?

Suppose none of the garbage regarding interference occurred, but the ball merely went errant to the backstop. While the baserunners left their bases thinking the game was over (as perhaps members of an umpiring crew might have done), what if the pitcher called for the catcher to retrieve that throw, and F1 subsequently made a successful appeal of the apparent winning run?

The ball is still live, but now the runners have abandoned their bases.
Do you call other runners out for abandonment?
Do you put them back at the bases they would have had? If so, by what rule?
Or, do you allow the defense to continue to play (and possibly appeal) on runners seeking to find a base in safety?

What if a following runner had passed a preceding runner en route to the festivities before the appeal? Would you then declare that runner out for passing a preceding runner now that we know the game is not ended?

It seems a missed base on a game ending play could have numerous Third World impacts an official would have to make decisions about...........


Freix

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Bfair
...blah, blah, blah .........


Freix

[oreillywv]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Warren & Jerry, see if this will help. Each of you make significant contribution to the enjoyment of play rulings. Thank you for that. I find the personal stuff to be a an irritating distraction. One of the beautiful aspects of sports officiating is that each of us can come up with a differnet angle on a play situation. Exposing all tjose angles is truly educational.Knowledge and experience plays a part. But there needs to be accomodation for interested parties to make statements, and maybe due to shortness of knowledge or experience, or misinterpretation, their presentations are still vital to exploring all aspects of controversy. Shouting people down or personal comments detracts from the learning experience. Plus,such conduct might intimidate newcomers from participating. Now, can we get together for refreshments and continue the dialogue? Warren, bring Fosters. I'm very friendly when Foster is nearby. Thanks again for all the positive stuff. Pat O'Reilly, umpire and sports researcher.ST Albans, West Virginia [email protected]

[Jerry]

Pat,
Yours is one of the best replies I've yet to see on this or any other board. I'll meet you for a drink in WV anytime!

As you've probably already grasped . . . many plays are "one of a kind". In the heat of the battle, umpires are required to make a ruling; whether it be "right" or "wrong". I'm sure the "armchair officials" and the media will analyze these plays "ad nauseum"; without a firm resolution on what "SHOULD have been called" by the book.

The only point in my discussion and reply is that an umpire has two obligations. One is to make a call . . .no matter what it is. The second obligation is to be able to support that call/ruling with either precedence, practice or simply "gut feeling." I think you've managed to convey that.

Thanks for the input.

Jerry