Coach brings rules book on field - NCAA

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, from your own description, it sounds like interference.

That said - it's a judgement call, and not protestable. And him coming out 2 innings later needs to be shut down immediately, very much in the manner that you did shut it down.

As to the next games - that's completely inappropriate, and I've seen umpires eject at the plate conference for coaches arguing crap from old games just like you describe.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

+1.

If the throw would have retired the runner (timely, a defensive player in position, and an accurate enough throw), then the runner running there interfered with the fielder receiving the throw.

I don't fully grasp the rationale, as no where else on the field is a "receiver" effectively guaranteed a runner won't get in the way; but it is what it is.

OK, this is the best description of "interference by being there" that I have heard. I agree with this. Maybe I kicked the judgment portion of this play. I can live with that.

Originally Posted by jmkupka

Having attended 2 NCAA rules meetings before the section started, it was clarified that nothing about the running lane rules changed, except the requirement for a line to be drawn (it would be nice if they drew a little tic mark at 15', to reduce that aspect of judgement, but I'lll survive).
To avoid being called for INT, the BR must stay in "that running lane area" until the last stride, when they may enter fair territory to contact 1B.

I was at the meeting in Palo Alto, and they said the same thing. However, when I went to the book with the list of rules changes to commit them to memory, all the text about where the runner must stay was gone, and replaced with 12.2.7/12.19.1.3.2/12.25.2....and as mentioned above, I think I interpreted those too narrowly.

Next time, I'll probably have INT, and one less thing to post about here.