Coach brings rules book on field - NCAA

[teebob21]

So a couple weeks ago, I worked a Junior College game in which there was a protest. That may be a topic for another thread, but not this one.

A couple innings after the protest, the head coach (dissatisfied with our rules interpretation) came out between innings with the rules book in hand wanting to talk about it again.

I shut him down immediately. I have no idea what his question this time around was going to be, because I never actually heard him over my own voice.

"Coach, it's not up for discussion....Coach, I'm not talking about it...Go, $Coach_First_Name....$Coach_First_Name, in the dugout, or you're gonna have to go." At that, he finally left. (Irrelevant addendum: I worked some games for his team this week, and he still wanted to rehash it during the pregame "Hi, Coach, we're here" conversation. Also, he never filed the paperwork with the conference for an actual protest review.)

Game management question: Was talking him down and giving him all the rope I could the correct response for bringing the rulebook on-field at this level?

[AtlUmpSteve]

I'm missing a huge part of this story.

JUCO game, played under NCAA rules; coach says "I protest"; you are supposed to go get a rule book then and resolve the question on the field, not make a rule interpretation to be addressed by filing a protest after the game. NCAA 7.2.5.1

So did that happen; and THEN he comes out later with the book again, or did you just skip that step? Because if you skipped it, it's YOUR fault it could be rehashed later. If you did address with a rule book immediately, then, yes, shut it down just like any other discussion innings later after a play or ruling.

There is absolutely no rule that says a rulebook on the field is an ejection (in fact, as noted above, you are expected to address any protest with a rulebook; so manage your game, as you did. If he is waving it to show you up, THAT is the ejection, not the book itself.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I'm missing a huge part of this story.

JUCO game, played under NCAA rules; coach says "I protest"; you are supposed to go get a rule book then and resolve the question on the field, not make a rule interpretation to be addressed by filing a protest after the game. NCAA 7.2.5.1

So did that happen; and THEN he comes out later with the book again, or did you just skip that step? Because if you skipped it, it's YOUR fault it could be rehashed later. If you did address with a rule book immediately, then, yes, shut it down just like any other discussion innings later after a play or ruling.

There is absolutely no rule that says a rulebook on the field is an ejection (in fact, as noted above, you are expected to address any protest with a rulebook; so manage your game, as you did. If he is waving it to show you up, THAT is the ejection, not the book itself.

We "resolved" the issue on the field with the book. The protest happened in the top of the 2nd, and we addressed it with both coaches at that time, although the home HC disagreed. For clarity, a BR was hit with a thrown ball from F2 while in fair territory and I ruled no interference. We ruled on the protest under NCAA 12.25.2: no interference with the fielder making a play, no interference with the fielder catching a thrown ball, and no intentional interference with a thrown ball. She was simply hit with the throw from behind. (I found out later that I could have denied the protest in its entirety under NCAA 7.2.2.9: "Whether or not there was interference or obstruction" is not protestable, but that's a whole different conversation since the coach insisted that the runner could not run to 1B in fair territory, and that's what he protested. It was kind of a CF from the beginning, and I don't mean Center Fielder.)

If the protesting coach does not accept the resolution, he's supposed to send the incident report to the conference just like the umpires have to do. NCAA 7.2.5.2

The head coach came out again with his book between the 3rd and 4th while the pitcher was throwing warmups. He didn't wave it, but he was pointing vigorously at whatever page he was on and really wanted to talk about the play again. I handled it as described above.

[BretMan]

Batter-runner was more than halfway up the line (I assume), outside of the three-foot running lane, and got hit with the throw from F2...and that's NOT interference?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by BretMan

Batter-runner was more than halfway up the line (I assume), outside of the three-foot running lane, and got hit with the throw from F2...and that's NOT interference?

NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by teebob21

NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.

So, as a non-NCAA umpire, if there is no running lane and therefore no running lane INT rule; why is there a question, let alone a protest?
Any runner hit by a thrown ball anywhere, not intentional, is just that. DMF.

[teebob21]

I don't disagree Cecil, which is why I said in the OP the protest itself was a topic for a whole 'nother thread. Of course, coaches would need to be up to date on the rule changes for something like this to happen and there not be a question.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by teebob21

NCAA eliminated the runner's lane marking this year, and removed the rules that reference it. It used to be 12.2.8. If you can find it in the current book, you're welcome to post a cite...I've been through backwards and forwards and read the Interpretations document, and I don't think it's in there any more.

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

In the rule change explanation, we are told they remove the running lane defining where the BR must run, but the rule continues to cover the situation. So, was there no fielder in place to receive this throw, or was this an errant throw,one not likely to put the runner out?

Back to the original, with what you have added, I agree with the first resolution (despite that you COULD refuse because it is interference, we need to address the elephant in the room); and further agree with simply shutting down the innings-later effort.

After that, I'm okay with a civil discussion not part of a game; but he certainly had opportunity to contact the coordinator for clarification, which should have been the next step if he thinks he or his team was wronged.

AFAIK, there was never a rule describing where the BR must run. It was a rule describing where the BR can run to avoid the specific interference call. So, now the runner CAN be ruled as interferring if hit in the back with a thrown ball within where the running lane used to be? (I must be missing something... )

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It remains in two locations, it just doesn't reference a running lane, just running in a manner that interferes with a fielder taking a throw at first base.

12.2.7 and 12.19.1.3.2

12.25.2 is worded identically to these rules. By the magic that is NCAA rulemaking, it's covered in triplicate within Rule 12. They all include "Note: A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." That is what happened. My BR did not prevent the fielder from doing anything or interfere with F3 in anyway...rather, the ball never made it to 1B because the throw struck the BR. I interpret all of these rule entries + the supplemental material as saying the BR is out for interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Contact would be the most likely example, but there are others, such as anything intentional.

Is this interpretation too narrow?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Am I the only one who finds it strange that the NCAA has gone through some serious pain creating rules providing and maintaining reference points for umpires (lines for pitching lane and batter's box) and then goes out of their way to eliminate that of the 3' lane which can provide major help to the umpires and players alike?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by teebob21

12.25.2 is worded identically to these rules. By the magic that is NCAA rulemaking, it's covered in triplicate within Rule 12. They all include "Note: A batter-runner being hit with a thrown ball does not necessarily constitute interference." That is what happened. My BR did not prevent the fielder from doing anything or interfere with F3 in anyway...rather, the ball never made it to 1B because the throw struck the BR. I interpret all of these rule entries + the supplemental material as saying the BR is out for interfering with the fielder taking the throw. Contact would be the most likely example, but there are others, such as anything intentional.

Is this interpretation too narrow?

Being that the fielder didn't catch the ball, then I would say you are being too narrow.

Would the throw have been caught by the fielder at first base had it not hit the runner? If yes, then you have interference.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Being that the fielder didn't catch the ball, then I would say you are being too narrow.

Would the throw have been caught by the fielder at first base had it not hit the runner? If yes, then you have interference.

+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.

[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.

[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.