Simple question, but can't find answer

[Ump180]

I know that the answer is simple, but I can't seem to get a consensious:

Runner on second and third, outs don't matter. Grounder to short, fields clean and throws wide of first. F1 nocks the ball down, rolling (but not going to go out of play) 1st base coach (a) in box or (b) out of box kicks the ball out of play.

Who advances/is called out? Basiclly, what does the umpire do? (FYI: when this actually happend, the umps missed the kick so played is as if the ball went in off the throw)

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by Ump180
I know that the answer is simple, but I can't seem to get a consensious:

Runner on second and third, outs don't matter. Grounder to short, fields clean and throws wide of first. F1 nocks the ball down, rolling (but not going to go out of play) 1st base coach (a) in box or (b) out of box kicks the ball out of play.

Who advances/is called out? Basiclly, what does the umpire do? (FYI: when this actually happend, the umps missed the kick so played is as if the ball went in off the throw)

This is Offensive Interference and is covered by both OBR 2.00 and OBR 5.08. The ball is DEAD, but only because it went out of play, and the runner on whom the play was made is OUT [OBR 5.08]. Other runners return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference [OBR 2.00 Offensive Interference].

With coach's interference the ball is normally kept alive to allow the defense to make plays on other runners.

Hope this helps

Cheers

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

This is Offensive Interference and is covered by both OBR 2.00 and OBR 5.08. The ball is DEAD, but only because it went out of play, and the runner on whom the play was made is OUT [OBR 5.08]. Other runners return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference [OBR 2.00 Offensive Interference].

With coach's interference the ball is normally kept alive to allow the defense to make plays on other runners.

Hope this helps

Cheers

I have read rule 5.08. NOT Quoting. It states if a thrown ball hits a base coach, ball is alive. If the coach hits the ball, the ball is dead and runner is out.

In this situation I don't see the coach interfering with the throw, the throw was wild as stated and hit the coach, not the coach hitting the ball.

Because the ball went out of play, it should have been called dead, and runner at first is safe and remains at first. Other runners stay at base occupied at the time the ball went into dead ball territory.

I also don't think the coach being in or out of the coach's box has any bearing on the play. The coach is required to vacate the box to avoid interfering with a fielder trying to make a play.

Looking forward to replies!








[Edited by thumpferee on Jul 2nd, 2003 at 05:36 AM]

[BadAxe]

"In this situation I don't see the coach interfering with the throw, the throw was wild as stated and hit the coach, not the coach hitting the ball. "


He said the coach kicked the ball. Wouldn't that be the coach interfering? He didn't interfer with the throw, but it definitely sounds as if he interfered with the ball while it was rolling in the field of play. If he didn't kick it, I guess it shoulda read "The ball hit him in the foot". Anyway, I defer to you guys for the ruling on the play, I just wanted to state that it does sound as if the base coach interfered with the ball while it was still in play.

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by thumpferee

I have read rule 5.08. NOT Quoting. It states if a thrown ball hits a base coach, ball is alive. If the coach hits the ball, the ball is dead and runner is out.

In this situation I don't see the coach interfering with the throw, the throw was wild as stated and hit the coach, not the coach hitting the ball.

Because the ball went out of play, it should have been called dead, and runner at first is safe and remains at first. Other runners stay at base occupied at the time the ball went into dead ball territory.

I also don't think the coach being in or out of the coach's box has any bearing on the play. The coach is required to vacate the box to avoid interfering with a fielder trying to make a play.

Looking forward to replies!
[Edited by thumpferee on Jul 2nd, 2003 at 05:36 AM]

No offense but OBR 5.08 does NOT state that the ball is DEAD. It simply says that the runner is OUT if the coach intentionally interferes with the thrown ball. Notice it says interferes with the "thrown ball" and not with "the throw". There is a very clear and important distinction.

You need to re-examine the original post. In the case in point the coach actually KICKED the thrown ball out of play while it was rolling around on the ground before the fielder could recover from knocking it down. The scenario states that the ball would NOT have rolled out of play absent the coach's contacting the ball (not the ball contacting the coach). That certainly fits the definition of intentional interference, regardless of what the coach was thinking at the time - see OBR 3.15 Comment and Play for a comparative analysis and understanding of the concept of intentional interference by persons entitled to be on the playing field.

OTOH you are correct that the coach's position relative to the coach's box at the time is irrelevant.

Cheers

[thumpferee]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

No offense but OBR 5.08 does NOT state that the ball is DEAD. It simply says that the runner is OUT if the coach intentionally interferes with the thrown ball. Notice it says interferes with the "thrown ball" and not with "the throw". There is a very clear and important distinction.

You need to re-examine the original post. In the case in point the coach actually KICKED the thrown ball out of play while it was rolling around on the ground before the fielder could recover from knocking it down. The scenario states that the ball would NOT have rolled out of play absent the coach's contacting the ball (not the ball contacting the coach). That certainly fits the definition of intentional interference, regardless of what the coach was thinking at the time - see OBR 3.15 Comment and Play for a comparative analysis and understanding of the concept of intentional interference by persons entitled to be on the playing field.

OTOH you are correct that the coach's position relative to the coach's box at the time is irrelevant.

Cheers

No where did I see in the original post that the kick by the coach was INTENTIONAL. It says, was kicked.

I took it as though the throw was wild, B1 safe at first on the bad throw, coach trying to avoid and kicks the ball UNINTENTIONALLY out of play as it is rolling away from F3.

How can the perception that the coach interfered with the "thrown ball" while standing in foul territory(assuming that's where he was) on a throw by F6 to F3?

Example: R1 on 1st and F1 attempts to pick off R1. Ball gets by F3, R1 takes a couple steps toward second then starts back to 1st. The throw by F3 to F1 at 1st hits the base coach. INTERFERENCE. RUNNER OUT.

That's an example of a base coach interfering with a "thrown ball". In the case provided, I saw it as though the "thrown ball" hit the coach. Intentionally kicking the ball is another story. In that case I would agree with you.

You are correct, that rule says the runner is out, Not a dead ball as I stated. BUT, I did say NOT QUOTING. When I said the ball is Dead, I was refering to the situation that interference was the call and by rule 2.0 (d)(e) On any interference the ball is dead.

I have also checked your reference to 3.15. Again, Intentional comes into play. Where does it say the kick was INTENTIONAL in the original post.

Maybe a better explaination of the play would help.

[Bfair]

Originally posted by Ump180
I know that the answer is simple, but I can't seem to get a consensious:

Runner on second and third, outs don't matter. Grounder to short, fields clean and throws wide of first. F1 nocks the ball down, rolling (but not going to go out of play) 1st base coach (a) in box or (b) out of box kicks the ball out of play.

Who advances/is called out? Basiclly, what does the umpire do? (FYI: when this actually happend, the umps missed the kick so played is as if the ball went in off the throw)

The primary issue that must be judged here is whether you felt the ball was kicked unintentionally or intentionally.

If judged that the kick was unintentional while a coach was attempting to vacate the area needed by the player(s) to retrieve the ball, then there is no interferference. Since you state the ball was not going to DBT of its own impetus from the throw, you would award the runners 2 bases from base occupied at TOI. If the ball would have gone to DBT of its own impetus despite the kick, then the kick is a mere deflection that would result in a 2 base award from TOP.

If the kick by the coach is judged as intentional, then you should kill the play and declare out the runner most likely to be played upon. In your scenario, that could either be the BR or perhaps R2 advancing to the plate. If in doubt as to which runner would have been played upon, I'd declare out the runner closest to the plate, and return any other runner(s) to base occupied at TOI.

The location of the coach in or out of his box is of no relevance. Still, if in doubt as to whether the act is intentional or unintentional, I never provide the offending team the benefit of the doubt. Yet if the coach had proven to me through his efforts to avoid being hit that he was truly attempting to avoid the action, I'd consider the kick as unintentional.


Just my opinion,

Freix

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Bfair

The primary issue that must be judged here is whether you felt the ball was kicked unintentionally or intentionally.

If judged that the kick was unintentional while a coach was attempting to vacate the area needed by the player(s) to retrieve the ball, then there is no interferference. Since you state the ball was not going to DBT of its own impetus from the throw, you would award the runners 2 bases from base occupied at TOI. If the ball would have gone to DBT of its own impetus despite the kick, then the kick is a mere deflection that would result in a 2 base award from TOP.

If the kick by the coach is judged as intentional, then you should kill the play and declare out the runner most likely to be played upon. In your scenario, that could either be the BR or perhaps R2 advancing to the plate. If in doubt as to which runner would have been played upon, I'd declare out the runner closest to the plate, and return any other runner(s) to base occupied at TOI.

The location of the coach in or out of his box is of no relevance. Still, if in doubt as to whether the act is intentional or unintentional, I never provide the offending team the benefit of the doubt. Yet if the coach had proven to me through his efforts to avoid being hit that he was truly attempting to avoid the action, I'd consider the kick as unintentional.


Just my opinion,

Freix

Agreed, and I'll add that in NCAA, a "kick" by the coach is always considered intentional. I'd not be surprised if there isn't some similar "instruction" to umpires under OBR that's similar.

[bluezebra]

A kick, by inference and definition, is intentional.

Bob

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by thumpferee
No where did I see in the original post that the kick by the coach was INTENTIONAL. It says, was kicked.

I took it as though the throw was wild, B1 safe at first on the bad throw, coach trying to avoid and kicks the ball UNINTENTIONALLY out of play as it is rolling away from F3.

How can the perception that the coach interfered with the "thrown ball" while standing in foul territory(assuming that's where he was) on a throw by F6 to F3?

Example: R1 on 1st and F1 attempts to pick off R1. Ball gets by F3, R1 takes a couple steps toward second then starts back to 1st. The throw by F3 to F1 at 1st hits the base coach. INTERFERENCE. RUNNER OUT.

That's an example of a base coach interfering with a "thrown ball". In the case provided, I saw it as though the "thrown ball" hit the coach. Intentionally kicking the ball is another story. In that case I would agree with you.

You are correct, that rule says the runner is out, Not a dead ball as I stated. BUT, I did say NOT QUOTING. When I said the ball is Dead, I was refering to the situation that interference was the call and by rule 2.0 (d)(e) On any interference the ball is dead.

I have also checked your reference to 3.15. Again, Intentional comes into play. Where does it say the kick was INTENTIONAL in the original post.

Maybe a better explaination of the play would help.

Mr Thumpferee, there are several points that I must make with no disrespect intended:

1. A "kick" of the ball by the coach or any other person entitled to be on the playing field is automatically considered intentional, as the two Bob's correctly responded above. That was why I quoted OBR 3.15 Comment and Play. 3.15 Comment says:
   If, however, the person kicks the ball or picks it up or pushes it, that is considered intentional interference, regardless of what the person's thought may have been.

2. Indeed you did say "NOT quoting", but it is customary even when paraphrasing a rule rather than quoting it to get the premise of the rule correct. There is NO mention of the ball being DEAD anywhere in that rule and your paraphrase explicitly said there was. An honest mistake? No problem. Everyone makes them, including me. See the following point 4 for confirmation.

3. OBR 2.00(d) is about spectator interference. There is NO OBR 2.00 (e). The comment at the end of OBR 2.00 following point (d) would normally be referenced as OBR 2.00 Interference, Comment or OBR 2.00 Interference, End Note. That comment is a misleading statement because the ball is NOT automatically dead on any interference. Unintentional interference by persons entitled to be on the playing field, including coaches, is one specific exception.

4. On coach's interference the ball usually remains ALIVE AND IN PLAY, if the interference was unintentional. [OBR 5.08] On coaches interference by assistance [OBR 7.09(i)] the ball also remains ALIVE AND IN PLAY. I reasoned that if the rules allowed a coach to kill play by intentionally interfering with a thrown ball then it would be quite likely for a coach at 3rd base to kill a possible triple play by knocking down the first throw to third base! That is why I made my interpretation that the ball also remains alive on coach's intentional interference. It seems I may have been quite wrong about that.
   
   The following interpretation of 5.08 and explanatory play from Evans would seem to disagree with my earlier interpretation:
   Though Rule 5.08 states a penalty in rather vague terms ...”the runner is out”... it becomes the umpire’s responsibility to determine which runner in the case of multiple runners. In the case of interference interpreted as intentional by the umpire, he shall rule the ball dead and call “out” the runner who would have most benefited by the coach’s actions. (See situations below.)
   
   PLAY: Runner on 2nd. The batter’s ground ball is fielded to 1st but gets by the first baseman. The coach falls to the ground and covers the ball as the runner from 2nd scores and the BR advances to 2nd.
   
   RULING: This is most likely intentional interference by the coach. The ball should be ruled dead, the lead runner declared out, and the BR returned to 1st.

Despite Evans I would be inclined to leave the ball ALIVE AND IN PLAY, even on intentional interference by the coach, IF there was any possibility that the defense might still have a play on other runners. That's how the situation is properly handled with coach's assistance [OBR 7.09(i)], the ball only being ruled dead if the defense attempts to play on the assisted runner after the interference, so it's not much of a stretch to go that way for intentional interference with a thrown ball, too. Besides, my copy of Evans is getting positively ancient, so there may even have been a more recent interpretation that supports keeping the ball alive in this case. Anyone have a line on such a later interpretation?

Cheers


[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 2nd, 2003 at 07:57 PM]

[thumpferee]

Thanks for clarification on that. I just hadn't seen anywhere that a KICK was to be considered intentional under OBR, even when unintentional.

I simply can't see penalizing the offense on an errant throw by a fielder which is inadvertantly kicked.

You are correct when you stated:

"OBR 2.00(d) is about spectator interference. There is NO OBR 2.00 (e). The comment at the end of OBR 2.00 following point (d) would normally be referenced as OBR 2.00 Interference, Comment or OBR 2.00 Interference, End Note. That comment is a misleading statement because the ball is NOT automatically dead on any interference. Unintentional interference by persons entitled to be on the playing field, including coaches, is one specific exception". End Quote

I was referencing my 2003 LL Rule Book, and under 2.00 (e) it is shown as an individual ruling. But under MLB OBR it is shown as (d) and shown as part of the spectator interference ruling.

I have a question if I may which I posted on another thread.

Is there a delayed dead ball in OBR?

There is on obstruction 7.06 (b)
but I saw no other situation in the rule book where the ball would be delayed dead on interference.

I been calling under FED rules for 3 years and am now calling under LL rules. There are many differences and seem to get rules mixed up from time to time.

That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

Looking forward to your replies.

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by thumpferee
I have a question if I may which I posted on another thread.

Is there a delayed dead ball in OBR?

Coach's interference (aiding a runner)

Batter's interference (with a catcher making a play)

Umpire's interference (ditto)

Catcher's interference

Some balks

Ejections that happen while play is on-going

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by thumpferee
I have a question if I may which I posted on another thread.

Is there a delayed dead ball in OBR?

There is on obstruction 7.06 (b)but I saw no other situation in the rule book where the ball would be delayed dead on interference.

I been calling under FED rules for 3 years and am now calling under LL rules. There are many differences and seem to get rules mixed up from time to time.

That's my excuse and I'm sticking with it.

Looking forward to your replies.

First of all, you're welcome on the clarifications. If you intend to keep quoting from the LL rule book, be aware that the difference you have discovered on this occasion is NOT the only one. For example, there is no Rule 7.13 in the OBR, but there is in the LL version. It might be best if you were to preface the rule number with LL, so we know that you aren't quoting from the garden variety Official Baseball Rules (OBR).

OTOH, if you would prefer you can go to the Official Baseball Rules Online at MLB.com, and check citations against the source before you reply. Just a helpful suggestion is all.

As to your question, OBR has a delayed dead ball for:

• Obstruction with no play being made on the obstructed runner [OBR 7.06(b)],
• Catcher's Interference [OBR 6.08(c)],
• Delivering a defaced ball [OBR 8.02(a)Penalty(c)],
• Batter's Interference [OBR 6.06(c)], and
• Balks in some cases [OBR 8.05 Penalty].

If you are having trouble handling the differences between FED and OBR, you might find Carl Childress' book Baseball Rules Differences (BRD) a useful addition to your library. You can purchase it from Officiating.com by going to the baseball page and clicking on the link provided. It covers differences between FED, OBR, NCAA and NAIA, is cross-referenced, indexed and reports official interpretations from all of the authorised interpreters of those rules. Oh, and it also lists ALL cases of a delayed dead ball between the various rules systems. *BIG grin*

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Edited by Warren Willson on Jul 3rd, 2003 at 07:25 AM]

[Warren Willson]

Originally posted by bob jenkins

Coach's interference (aiding a runner)

Batter's interference (with a catcher making a play)

Umpire's interference (ditto)

Catcher's interference

Some balks

Ejections that happen while play is on-going

Bob, I have in my mind that, by interpretation, the ball is ALIVE AND IN PLAY on coach's assistance [OBR 7.08(i)]. It only gets called dead if the defense attempts to play on the assisted runner after the coach interferes.

I also have it in my mind that, unless I have missed an interpretation, Umpire's interference with a catcher's throw is also an immediate dead ball under OBR 2.00 Interference(c), or if it is interference with any other thrown ball it remains ALIVE AND IN PLAY under OBR 5.08.

Am I in error on these two points?

Cheers

[bob jenkins]

Originally posted by Warren Willson

Bob, I have in my mind that, by interpretation, the ball is ALIVE AND IN PLAY on coach's assistance [OBR 7.08(i)]. It only gets called dead if the defense attempts to play on the assisted runner after the coach interferes.

I also have it in my mind that, unless I have missed an interpretation, Umpire's interference with a catcher's throw is also an immediate dead ball under OBR 2.00 Interference(c), or if it is interference with any other thrown ball it remains ALIVE AND IN PLAY under OBR 5.08.

Am I in error on these two points?

Cheers

1) you might be right on coach's interference -- I've only had it a couple of times, and time has been called at the end of the play to explain / reinforce the call. IT might not be by rule, but as a practical matter, I think it hapens.

2) If the catcher's throw doesn't retire the runner, time is called to enforce the umpire's interference.