Here's a play I had to rule on many years ago. I'd like to hear other umpires' opinions on it.

Runner on first base. Batter hits a line drive. It lands fair in left field by about a foot. The runner attempts to score all the way from first base. The left fielder picks up the ball (which has rolled into foul territory) and throws it toward home plate. The throw hits the third base coach in the back and the runner scores easily. The coach was in the coach's box and he was doing his job--waving the runner around third base. The defensive team lobbies for an interference call. I said no interference because the coach had every right to be coaching from the coach's box. He in no way deliberately got in the way of the throw. However, if the coach had been standing outside of the box and the throw hit him, a case could be made for interference.

Would any of you have called that play differently?

[Edited by John Robertson on Jun 4th, 2005 at 10:40 AM]

I certainly wouldn't reward the defense for a lousy throw.

Bob

The coaches box is not a safe haven for coaches .
They have to get out of the way .
The runner is out when the coach interferes with the defensives teams opportunity to make a play on a runner or batter runner .

ASA 8-7-O
 

The runner is out when a coach intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball, or interferes with the defensive team's opportunity to make a play on another runner. The runner closest to home plate at the time of the interference shall be declared out. A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.

(underline added by me for emphasis)

I think I'm with you and Bob on this one - there was no intention. Good call.

No problem with that as it is an ASA rule .
I talk ISF which generally is the same with the odd difference like this one

ISF 8.9 Runner is out:

a. When a coach
1. Intentionally interferes with a thrown ball while in the coach's box.


I do not believe #2 (defenses opportunity to make a play) applies as the coach is not interfering with any member of the defensive team, is exactly were s/he is prescribed to be according to 4.1.c.2. If every thrown ball which hit a coach was going to result in the runner closest to home being ruled out, the players would be throwing at the coach. This would restrict the coach's ability to perform their duties as it relates to directing the runners as they would always be looking for the ball, not paying attention to their runner.

JMHO,





[Edited by IRISHMAFIA on Jun 6th, 2005 at 09:54 AM]

If a ball is thrown and hits the coach and stops the ball getting to home plate isnt this stopping the defense an opportunity for the defense to make a play at home plate ?

Further a coach should be aware at all times where the ball is .
In saying that a poor throw from left field that would not have reached home does not warrant interference but a good hard flat throw that could in the umpires judgement result in an out does .
It also depends on the meaning you take from " an opportunity to make a play on on a runner or batter runner"
Umpires judgement plays a big part in this one .

Debeau,

SRW cites the rule to use and the language is quite clear on how to rule on the play described.

We have an umpire who is unintentionly hit by a thrown ball so no out.

And as the rule is written a close reading reveals the following: first it says intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball (not our case) and second OR interferes with a play on another runner. In our case there is no OTHER RUNNER. Third, SRW underlines the part of being unintentionly hit is not interference.

The rule covers this play beautifully. What don't you get about it? Fuzzy logic?

The rule states a play on a runner or batter runner .
In this case we have a batter runner .
I have stated umpires judgement .
I take it then you would not call interference if the coach was hit in the batters box unintentionally under any circumstances .
(ISF rules not ASA ) under ASA I was wrong . Full stop .
I was wrong !

<i>
I take it then you would not call interference if the coach was hit in the <u>batters box unintentionally</u> under any circumstances .</i>

If a ball is live and a coach is hit in the batter's box,
Yes, I got interference.

DeBeau - is this another made-up NZ/Aust interp, or are you just missing the rule here. The ISF rule clearly states that the runner is out if a coach INTENTIONALLY interferes. I can find no ISF rule to support your contention that unintentional interference should be an out. If you have one, please quote it.

I brought this one up at our weekly rules meeting and I am harder on int than most .
Most rules as all in this thread that there was no int .
ISF Rule 8(9)q 1 and 2
Interference occurs when
A coachintentionally interferes with a thrown ball while in the coaches box or
Interferes with the defensive teams opportunity to make a play on a runner or batter runner .
As we know interference does not have to be intentional .
As I said I rule harder on int but will review that in light of discussions here and my weekly rules session .
Note :
Discussion here has helped me in my umpiring decisions .
I did note a hint of sarcasm mccrowder( another made up NZ/Aust interp ).

Yes, just a hint. ;)

mccrowder
I am pleased and hope you take as much pleasure out of our discussions as I do .
I note you are not into the personal attacks as are some in this forum .
In the next year or year after I will be visiting the states ( havent decide where yet ) and hope to umpire somewhere .
If possible it would be great to meet up with someone I have chatted to on this forum ,

Balderdash and baloney
 

[Lecture mode=on]

We seem to have gotten into a hypersensitive mode of late.

Maybe it is the recent intrusion of trolls, including the near troll who I have been intentionally (and with some difficutly since there are so many soft tosses he posts to pound back) ignoring, or maybe it is a cultural issue where American-speak doesn't translate well or NZ-speak is not read the same by Americans (or at least, in one case, by me), but whatever, lets grow thicker skin, shall we?

Little jabs here and there are not necessarily personal and not necessarily bad. I've had a few more-than-hints of sarcasm posted back at me a time or two.

Being personal is saying things like "you're an idiot."

Being sarcastic about a region's or an individual's rule interpretation is not "personal" unless your rule interpretation is who you are.

We've had all kinds of jibs and jabs back and forth about rule interpretations.

If the board search worked (gosh, that is taking a long time to fix!) I would suggest to do a search on the NFHS interpretation on a running lane violation on a base on balls. If you want sarcasm, you'll find the real thing there, not just a hint.

Can we grow up just a bit? We're starting to act like some of the little kids we call games for.

[/Lecture]

Re: Balderdash and baloney
 

Am not!

Re: Re: Balderdash and baloney
 

Are too! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/ae...smiley-022.gif

I'm telling!

DAD!!
 

Tom(Dakota) stuck his tongue out at me! Make him stop!

Children, go to your room! (MOM)

Tom started it............Make him go first.

You're only young once, but you can be immature forever.

A lesson from the law?
 

The way I read this, debeau, is that Part 1 would apply to thrown balls, and part 2 would apply to other acts that a coach might perform that interfered. Since this was a thrown ball, I would say that the interference would have to be intentional before I would call it.

Reading it the way you seem to makes the word "intentional" irrelevant. Applying a rule from law (statutory construction), you do not put in words that have no purpose. If you call anything done by a coach that interferes with the play, whether intentional or not, as interference, then you have made part 1 meaningless.

I'd like to believe that the authors of the rules would not put in wording that has no meaning. JMHO

I get your point and it is a good one . ( Are you a lawyer)
I read it as in the coaches box int has to be intentional outside it does not
Say if a coach moves to one side outside the coaches box to think he is getting out of the way but steps into a throw to home plate to retire a runner .