Umpiire's Nightmare #1 for November downtime

[whiskers_ump]

Roger Greene Wrote:

"Well, since everybody else has jumped in, I'll add this for physically assisting.

There is a case play (sorry, I don't recall which code, it might even be a BB play) in which R3 tags and stands ready to run facing toward home on a fly ball to left field. As F7 touches the ball, the 3rd base coach "taps" the runner's back to let him know to run. The case play ruled the runner out for being "physically assisted."

Roger,

PLAY 8.8-19 ASA CaseBook
R1 is on 3B when B5 hits a fly ball to deep center field. F7 is waiting
for the ball when the 3B coach 'taps' leg of R1 in an effort to tell
him to advance. The ball is caught by F7 (a) after the tap by the coach,
or (b) before the tap by the coach.

RULING: In both (a) and (b) R1 is out on runner assistance. (8.7E.)

I still gotta go with Tom's original call. Out for coaches
assistance.

glen

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally posted by Roger Greene
Well, since everybody else has jumped in, I'll add this for physically assisting.

There is a case play (sorry, I don't recall which code, it might even be a BB play) in which R3 tags and stands ready to run facing toward home on a fly ball to left field. As F7 touches the ball, the 3rd base coach "taps" the runner's back to let him know to run. The case play ruled the runner out for being "physically assisted."

Roger Greene

Yep and that is the correct call, but it also referred to helping a runner actually advance. As I posted, I would like to see this "tap" before I make a call. I believe that any differences here is based on the argument that the "tapping" in this case merely got the player's attention and did not aide her in advancing bases. As the original noted, the player was a step from the dugout, but what if a teammate tossed her glove to her and she was never going to enter the dugout? Now, Tom's theory is somewhat blown, though I don't disagree with his presumption. After all, it isn't the offense's fault the defense does not know the rules and walked off the field.

Like I said, I want to see it first.

[bethsdad]

I (as the coach) would argue the tap did not assist the runner in advancing ,all it did was stop her. She advanced on my verbal explanation. ... It's worth trying Brian OK I'll go along with the out. I just said it was worth trying. I always learn something from the pro's Thanks

[Edited by bethsdad on Nov 9th, 2003 at 12:08 AM]

[whiskers_ump]

Originally posted by bethsdad
I (as the coach) would argue the tap did not assist the runner in advancing ,all it did was stop her. She advanced on my verbal explanation. ... It's worth trying Brian

If your tap stopped her, that is definiately an assist. No
hesitating on this out whatsoever.

glen

[Roger Greene]

My thought exactly, Glenn.
It seems the case book play is on point.
Roger Greene

[TexBlue]

It seems like I've read a few posts where the rule says "...asists in advancing the runner..."

Rule 8-8-e simply states "When anyone other than another runner physiclly assists the runner while the ball is in play." It seems like the coach assisted her, by stopping her from going into the dugout when he tapped her on the shoulder. If he had simply yelled or instructed her to go to first, this is different. Going by the rule I quoted, she is out.

Rick

[Edited by TexBlue on Nov 9th, 2003 at 02:52 PM]

[Skahtboi]

After reading through this entire thread, I must admit that my initial reaction was the same as Mike's, I would have to see this "tap." However, as I continued reading, it became apparent to me that the tap did in fact assist the runner to some extent, for as Brian has pointed out, "all it did was stop her." Therefore, if the consensus is that the tap managed to stop the runner, for whatever reason, then the runner, in the truest sense of the phrase, has been assisted. Therefore, I think that I will have to rule with the out crowd due to coaches' interference.