I understand the the winning coach don't know his ... from a hole in the ground. He may have took credit for the win by thinking he understand the rule and pumping his fist got him the call, but obviously the umps got together and made the right call if he in fact interfered with the throw, and NOT interfering with his own BR.

If the coach interfered with the play and the umps saw it that way, then they made the correct call. Even the off coach said it was the right call, but wtf does he know. Maybe he knew he interfered with the throw and why he claimed responsibility.

I kind of understand the discussion here, but I haven't seen anyone state the fact that F5 states the coach was in his way on the relay throw home. IMO that is what's relative here. Am I wrong?

And since when do announcers and reporters have a F'ing clue on what theyre talking about:confused:

JMTC

Coach interference - Judgement - not automatic. Hint of an intent requirement but not actually stated.

3.15 PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base. Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

Is this some type of example to the play being discussed?

I hope not because, IMO it's nowhere near the same situation. Am I missing something?

I think that what you're picking up from this case is not a hint of an intent requirement, but a negligence provision. An intent requirement would require that the coach intend to interfere.

A negligence provision requires the coach to do "all he could to avoid interfering with the play." It's not sufficient, as the ruling goes on to say, to give the appearance of doing all one can (and maybe that's the hint of intent you're picking up on), nor is it sufficient to do nothing and just stand there (as a batter may sometimes do in the batter's box).

So we may have this:

"Rule: 3-2-3



ART. 3 . . . No offensive team personnel, other than the base coach, shall be near a base for which a runner is trying so that a fielder may be confused; nor be on or near the baseline in such a way as to draw a throw; nor shall the base coach or members of the team at bat fail to vacate any area needed by a fielder in his attempt to put out a batter or runner.

If a thrown live ball unintentionally touches a base coach in foul territory, or a pitched or thrown ball touches an umpire, the ball is live and in play. If the coach is judged by the umpire to have interfered intentionally with the thrown ball, or interferes in fair territory, the interference penalty is invoked.

PENALTY: The ball is dead immediately and the runner is out. The batter-runner or runner may be out as in 7-4-1f and 8-4-2g. Other runners return as in 8-2-8. "

While interference with a thrown ball requires intent, interference with a fielder trying to put out a runner does not. Maybe the coach not only did not vacate the area, he put himself in it. Or he interfered in fair territory.
Just guessing about what really happened.

From what has been posted I think you have a great idea of what happened, train wreck between coach and runner, runner gets up unassisted and scores easily.

What some here seem to be hanging hat on is that any contact between coach and runner is interference. Not so.

I think the article and coach just got it blatantly wrong, and the call was made because of the interference with the fielder.