Opinions please

Chess Ref

Partner and I had a minor disagreement on this play.
I'm BU. R1 on 1B. Batter hits a gapper to right field. I follow the batter into 2B,pretty close play. Then F6 comes up throwing to 3B for a play on R1 ,who slipped rounding 2B, a rocket of a throw that missed F1 who was at 3B. The throw then strikes the coach in the 3B coaching box.

He did make a nice effort to jump out of the way but the throw nailed him in his foot. We had to hold up the game for him to regain his composure. 😎

Partner who was at 3B for call immediately came up with "Dead ball". So play stopped. I thought we should have continued play but he believed the coach was a form of detached equipment and hence it was a blocked ball. The ball only rolled a couple of feet so it didn't really have any effect on play but was wondering what others thought about killing the play ?

NCASAUmp

I've got nothing on this.

ronald

Not killing it. You were right.

Coach is not detached equipment. Conjecture says that idea popped in his head and he went with it. Not a valid point.

vcblue

Detached Equipment and Blocked ball are two different rules under Rule 8-5. This can be in no way detached equipment. You only need to read the definitions to figure that out. It could be a block ball (8-5-G) if the judgement of your partner the fielder could not field the ball because the coach was in the way. However, this is a 2-base award from the tie of the throw. Did you partner award two bases? I would have loved to see that and how he explained it to the DC. There most likely would be an ejection at the end 🙂

This is nothing let it play out.

NCASAUmp

In my opinion, as long as the coach is in the box where s/he should be and doesn't perform an act that actually hinders the defense from making an out on a runner, I've got nothing. The coach's box is not a sanctuary, but that's where they're supposed to be.

If they're doing what they're supposed to be doing where they're supposed to be doing it, then I'm not calling it.

kcg NC2Ablu

dont kill it unless he blocks the ball and hinders defensive players from getting it thus making it blocked.

IRISHMAFIA

kcg NC2Ablu wrote
dont kill it unless he blocks the ball and hinders defensive players from getting it thus making it blocked.

Speaking ASA

Any interference by the coach on this play would need to be intentional. (8.7.0) even if it hinders the defensive players.

wadeintothem

Its a little odd an umpire would consider a coach as detached equipment.

I would have been at this umpire with an open rule book post game. Its important everyone takes time to look at a rule if its confusing on the field.

NCASAUmp

IRISHMAFIA wrote
Speaking ASA

Any interference by the coach on this play would need to be intentional. (8.7.0) even if it hinders the defensive players.

Hell, he may have even HELPED the defense if the ball rolled back towards fair territory. 😀

I had a similar play a couple years ago that I believe I mentioned on the forum. A hard throw to 3B came from left center or centerfield, but it was off. It bounced off the fence and hit the on-deck batter in the foot (who was honestly trying to avoid the ball) while he was in the circle. The ball popped up a couple of feet in the air, and F1 (who was backing up the throw) was able to catch it in mid-air and throw to F2 to attempt to retire the runner. The runner was safe, but it was a VERY close play.

The defense wanted an INT call, but if the ball hadn't have hit the on-deck batter, it would have gone to the backstop where no one was covering. If anything, the bounce it took off the on-deck batter's foot helped, not hindered, the defense.

Chess Ref

wadeintothem wrote
Its a little odd an umpire would consider a coach as detached equipment.

I would have been at this umpire with an open rule book post game. Its important everyone takes time to look at a rule if its confusing on the field.

Aren't you the little optimist . 🙂

NCASAUmp

Chess Ref wrote
Aren't you the little optimist . 🙂

Yeah, well... There's a reason why wade (and a lot of us on this board) is advancing above other umpires.

He gives a sh1t. 🙂

PtotheB

Wow! The coach was actually where he was supposed to be? I'm not penalizing the offense for a missed throw or a bad throw if we were all in our places with bright shiny faces. Let's play...and no coach just because your foot is hurt you still can't sit on your bucket in the coaches box.

MNBlue

wadeintothem wrote
Its a little odd an umpire would consider a coach as detached equipment.

I've seen some coaches lose their heads. 😮 Could that be detached equipment? 😃:cool::p

Chess Ref

NCASAUmp wrote
Yeah, well... There's a reason why wade (and a lot of us on this board) is advancing above other umpires.

He gives a sh1t. 🙂

Well I get that. 😎

I'm also down with alot of the blues on this board are probably better then your average local blue and advancing appropriately.

My experience is something along the lines of 75 % just don't know some of the more basic rules (DP/Flex) and pretty fundermental mechanics.

Hence my optimistic comment. 🙄

IRISHMAFIA

NCASAUmp wrote
Hell, he may have even HELPED the defense if the ball rolled back towards fair territory. 😀

I had a similar play a couple years ago that I believe I mentioned on the forum. A hard throw to 3B came from left center or centerfield, but it was off. It bounced off the fence and hit the on-deck batter in the foot (who was honestly trying to avoid the ball) while he was in the circle. The ball popped up a couple of feet in the air, and F1 (who was backing up the throw) was able to catch it in mid-air and throw to F2 to attempt to retire the runner. The runner was safe, but it was a VERY close play.

The defense wanted an INT call, but if the ball hadn't have hit the on-deck batter, it would have gone to the backstop where no one was covering. If anything, the bounce it took off the on-deck batter's foot helped, not hindered, the defense.

You need to be careful, though. The ODB does not enjoy the same protection as a coach. Being in the circle or trying to avoid being hit does not excuse the ODB from an INT call.

NCASAUmp

IRISHMAFIA wrote
You need to be careful, though. The ODB does not enjoy the same protection as a coach. Being in the circle or trying to avoid being hit does not excuse the ODB from an INT call.

I agree. Matter of fact, when it happened, I talked with my partner about it, and his response, sadly, was, "he was in the circle, so he can't be called for interfering." 😮

However, since the actions of the ODB did not hinder the defense's ability to get an out, I didn't call INT.