Score tied in the bottom of the 7th, 2 outs, batter hits a high popup down the 1st baseline, and gets a late jump out of the box. On the way to 1st, the BR sees the pitcher charging hard toward her looking up to track the popup, so the BR stops and takes a step backward to avoid colliding with the pitcher. The ball hits the pitcher's glove over fair territory, pops out and bounces off the BR's helmet and is caught by F2 who has trailed the BR up the line. F2 tosses the ball toward the circle, then she and F1 head for their dugout. The BR starts walking toward her dugout where she is met by the 1st base coach who taps her lightly on the shoulder just outside the dugout. He leans down and whispers into the BR's ear and she immediately turns and runs to 1st, then to 2nd, 3rd and home while the defensive team huddles in front of their dugout oblivious to what's going on. You as the LU are watching all of this, Once the runner touches home, what do you do?

SamC

Given that you didn't call an out
 

Count the run and call for the next batter.

When ball hit BR it is like hitting the ground ==> no catch by F2.

Definitely would be a nightmare if you incorrectly called the out.:D

BR out for coach's assistance - the tapping on the shoulder prevented BR from entering the dugout. Inning over.

I'm going to take a shot at this. It seems easy to me, but I may be missing something.

I've got the batter out for one of two reasons:

1. The step backwards before reaching first base
2. The caught fly ball

I can't see a case for interference on the BR as the pitcher had opportunity to catch the pop fly. The fact that the ball hit the batter does not change its status as a fly ball. If another defensive player catches it before it hits the ground, its a caught fly ball, batter out.

I can't come up with any reason that the coach might think its OK to have the BR circle the bases.

I think that there is more to this and I'm willing to be convinced otherwise.

Doesn't work because the BR was not attempting to delay or avoid a tag.Yes it does. See Rule 1-CATCH-E.

Andy,

Tom is correct, the defense did NOT retire this player.

However, I would have to see this "tap" before I'm going to rule the BR out. IOW, I'm going to have to be convinced it actually kept the BR in playable territory as it doesn't seem to exactly be the same thing as grabbing her arm to keep her from leaving play.

Ooopps
 

I missed the part about tied score... it was the first two words of the scenario... easy to miss.

Unless I can come up with a good reason to call the BR out (and I don't see one in this description), GAME OVER; Home team wins.

The umpire could have helped the situation by saying "No catch." Defense might have then made a proper out. Obviously the BR thought she was out beacuse she headed for the dugout. But a "no catch" call would have likely kept her running and prompted the defense to make a play.

In defense of coach's physical assistance on a HTBT play... obviously, a precarios position ;)I read that to say BR is just a step or so from entering DBT. Without action by the coach, she <u>will</u> enter DBT and be declared OUT. Obviously, the coach was trying to get the player's attention without tipping off the defense.

Coach says, "Sally, stop." legal.
Coach taps her on the shoulder. physical, right? Assisting her, right? (got her to stop). Why isn't that BR- OUT? Does the "lightly" part mean it was not illegal? My read of the sitch was the tap on the shoulder caused the player to stop walking. Can't do that, coach.

Anyhow, that is the reasoning behind my answer, above.

I stand corrected
 

Mike and Tom, thanks for the rule cite and clarification. I guess I need to go back and re-read Rule 1, as the part about the ball hitting the batter did not occur to me.

I figured the step backward reasoning was a stretch at best and was leaning toward the caught ball as the reason for the out. Oh well, better to screw it up here than on the field.

Tom - I can certainly see your reasoning for caling the out based on physically assisting the runner, but I don't know if I could invoke it for a light tap on the shoulder. This may be a situation to follow the spirit of the rule as opposed to the letter of the rule (IMHO).

I have a run, and the game over. Tom is right, the step back is legal, not avoiding a tag. Like Mike said the tap on the shoulder would have to be HTBT, but I doubt I would call it unless the coach actually grabbed the player.

Personally, I am going with Tom on this one. Batter is
out for coaches assistance. By posters description, BR
was about to enter dugout, he physcially stopped her with
touching {assist}. Play on.

glen

[Edited by whiskers_ump on Nov 6th, 2003 at 05:37 PM]

I think a tap on the shoulder or even a nudge, away from the basepath, is way beyond the intent of the rule on coach's assistance.

Wow, DTTB and D-B are still alive. :D

Perhaps this should be a new thread but since it deals directly with the coach "physically assisting" the player I will post it here.

I was doing 11-12 year olds that were not very good. R1, a deaf girl, was at first. A fly ball is hit to F9 and 3B coach sees F9 will not catch it so starts yelling, "Run". R1 is "tagging up" and just watching F9. 1B coach, a player, starts also jumping up and down yelling, "Run." R1 is deaf and does not hear the yelling, nor does she run.

1B, going into fair territory slightly, gets R1's attention and then R1 starts running.

Later I related the story to my brother, a non-umpire sports type, and he asked what I would have done if the coach had tapped R1. I said, "I doubt I would have seen that." (wink-wink-nudge-nudge, if you know what I mean.)

What would you have done if you had seen a tap?

I think the tap on the shoulder just got her attention. The assist was when he told her what to do.Of course thats if it's my DD's team. Brian

I want to explore this a bit. Of course, since this is a fictional play, we can visualize what we wish to visualize in making our well-considered, minutes-or-hours-or-days-to-think-about-it judgments, so nothing will be absolute.

The intent, as I have always thought of it, behind the coach's physical assist rule (actually the non-runner's physical assist rule) was that the runner in question must make all of the actual decisions regarding her play with only verbal or signal coaching from her coach, bench, whatever.

Clearly, as I visualize this play, time and silence were of the essence in the coach's actions. Time because he needed the BR to stop in her tracks, being only a step or so from entering DBT. Silence because he didn't want to tip the defense that she was not yet out.

Would a shout "GO TO FIRST" have worked? Probably wrt stopping the BR and having her make an attempt to first. Probably not wrt the defense. They'd have heard the shout also and may have been able to make the throw or tag in time.

Would a quieter or more vaguely worded instruction have worked? Maybe, but maybe the BR would have taken that extra step.

So, the coach decided to tap her on the shoulder. The natural reaction to a tap on the shoulder is to stop and turn, which is what she did. Sounds illegal to me - a physical assist where the physical contact is what caused the BR to change her direction.

Now, OTOH, same play but with the BR 10 feet from the dugout. In this case, the light tap on the shoulder was unlikely to have been critical to the successful coaching of the BR to continue the play. Probably no call.

Comments?

I don't think any tapping can really be considered "physically assisting". I think the intent of "physically assisting" was more along the lines of pushing the runner in a direction, helping the runner stop or turn (or get up), etc. By the strict dictionary definition of the rules, I can see a stretch to include a tap - but I truly don't think that could have been the intent of the rule-writers.

Kudos to Dakota Tom
 

http://www.rockcitynews.com/art/art10/trophy.gif

Well, Tom gets the trophy for seeing the play as I envisioned it and making the "right" call.

<b>A NOTE ABOUT Umpire's Nightmares</b>

Umpire's Nightmare's are ficticious situations that I cook up in my addled barin from time to time when the board gets slow. They are game situations which could happen in a game but probably won't. :D They are complicated situations and generally involve a number of red herrings http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/mica/fishead.gif like the batter backing up and one nugget http://www.educate.net.au/feature_ar...old/nugget.gif which allows one to unravel the play. Their intent is to make you think about softball during the off season, maybe crack open a book or two and to spark some discussion.

<b>CAVEAT</b> The "correct" answers to the UNs are based on my interpretation of the rules, and since I <i>AM NOT</i> a certified rules guru, my interpretations have occasionally been wrong in the past, but hey. I like learning too. :D
Anyway, I hope you enjoy them.

SamC

I'm at work, don't have the rule book, defining catching ball off an offensive runner. However I don't see anything wrong with coach tap, stepping backwards by BR, etc. I say the play stands until I get the scoop on this catch thing !
.
Whats the rule state on one off an offensive player after being touched by the defense. Is it a trap ? Maybe thats what should had been called.

It's a no catch.

The main sticking point here is the tap. Some of us believe that was inconsequential to the play, and others are including it in the definition of "physically assisting the runner". It's a good discussion.

Chuck,

The relevant rules regarding the "catch" by F2 are:

ASA Rule 1-Catch-e: A ball which strikes anything other than a defensive player while it is in-flight is ruled the same as if it had struck the ground.

and ASA Rule 8.8.F: the runner is NOT out when the runner is hit by fair batted ball after it touches or is touched by any fielder, including the pitcher, and the runner could not avoid contact with the ball.

Hope this clears up that part of the play for you.

SamC

Interpretation of rule one please. Is this ball still "in flight" after it was touched by the pitcher ?. Everyone is saying no catch..but I am wondering ?

I don't have my ASA book with me at work, but I believe there is also a definition for "in flight" to answer your question as to whether or not the ball was still "in flight."

Ed

From the most overlooked, ignored, and generally considered boring section of the rule book...

<font color=blue><b><big>RULE 1 - THE DEFINITIONS</BIG>
IN FLIGHT.</b> In flight is the term used for any batted, thrown or pitched ball which as not yet touched the ground or some object or person other than a fielder.</font>

Gentleman, I believe we have an out on the catch. And yes definitions are boring & overlooked.

There is no catch because the ball was no longer "in flight" when it was "caught." It had already touched a person other than a fielder. Therefore, it is ruled as if it had touched the ground, and second bouncers are not catches.

ASA Rule 1 Definitions

IN FLIGHT: In flight is the term used for any batted ball
which has not yet touched the ground or some object or <u>person</u>
other than a <i>fielder</i>

Hope that clears it up for you.

glen

chuck, perhaps you are not an umpire and so can be forgiven, or perhaps you are stating the obvious about the way coaches, etc., read the book, but no umpire has a chance in Hades of calling the game correctly without thoroughly understanding the Definitions rule. JMO.

[Edited by Dakota on Nov 7th, 2003 at 11:17 AM]

No wonder my originial post on the definition of 'in flight' would
not go....Tom was posting so quickly, his pushed mine back.
Sorry for the repeat on the answer.

glen

There is no doubt that the BR was not retired by the defense. The ball was not legally caught in flight and there is no penalty for a BR stepping backwards toward the plate unless to avoid an obvious tag.

The ONLY question in this play is the physical contact between the coach and BR.

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

Roger Greene Wrote:

<b>"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."</b>

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

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.

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]

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

glen

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

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]

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.