Ball Strikes 1st Base Coach
 

10U tournament ball - ASA. SS overthrows 1B and ball strikes first base coach who retreated against the fence. Is the ball live? RF was able to retrieve the ball but B/R advanced to 2B.

play on...

I always thought part of the field unless intentional but am not sure of rule reference. The HP umpire called dead ball and moved the runner from 2B back to 1B.

Then you should have included that in your original post.

We are more than happy to share with you, but I believe the regulars here prefer a "bait-free" board. If you want rulings and reasoning, you need to give the entire story up front.

While many here may offer reasons for an umpire to have taken the action s/he did, this group will not excuse stupidity or ignorance and will not hesitate to state that an umpire may have screwed up.

Well I'm not sure what the umpire saw...

If its unintentional its play on.

My rule of thumb is if a coach is making a legit effort to get out of the way, its play on. If the coach does anything to hint at not being proactive in getting out of the way I will punish his team. I.E. If a coach just stands in his box (to be honest I've only seen this in mens, never had it happen with girls) I consider that intentional interference.

Coach Interference occurs when a base coach interferes with a defender attempting to catch or throw a ball. The coach's box is not a sanctuary.

Merely being struck by an overthrown ball does not constitute INT, unless this contact impeded a backup player who was attempting to field the overthrow.

Did you have a post-game review with your partner to understand his thinking on the play?

ASA 8.7 The Runner Is Out

0. 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. A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.
EFFECT. The ball is dead. The runner closest to home is out. Runners not out must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.
NOTE: A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference.

The rule states it TWICE! If the contact is not intentional, it is not interference. It does NOT even require the coach to be in or out of the box at the time of contact. The coach's job is to direct the runners. That does not necessarily require him/her to be watching the ball, but more often the runners.

I would NEVER consider ruling coach's interference just because a coach didn't make an effort to move out of the was unless I was sure the coach was 100% cognizant that the ball was going to hit him/her and braced for the impact (and I'm not talking about a coach that just happens to catch the ball out of the corner of their eye and covers up).

I think we are on the same page mike .. I was thinking of a specific instance (because most coaches are good about this) in Mens FP when a 3B coach was blatantly interfering by standing there with his arms crossed when he knew and was more than aware he was interferring with a player and I called it.

Different application! The OP referred to a thrown ball.

If you are going to talk about a coach interfering with a fielder attempting to make a play, that's another story.

Wouldn't it also be INT on a throw to home plate from an outfielder near the line where the thrown ball strikes the base coach - unintentionally?

I think we already covered "A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference"

?What?

Well now I'm worser lost.. so apologies to OP.. lol

Mike,

The language of this ruling appears to differentiate between intentionally interfering with a batted or thrown ball and interfering (not specifying intent or not) with a play on a runner. Is this the clear intent of the rule: that interference with a batted or thrown ball has to be intentional for the runner to be called out, but interference with a play on a runner--whether intentional or unintentional--will cause the runner to be called out?

Either an English major or a lawyer would interpret it this way but I have seen some slightly sloppy wording in the ASA rules that makes me want to clarify whether it was their intent to make this distinction.

For example, R1 on 2B, BR hits and F4 fields the batted ball as R1 advances to 3B, F4 throws to F5 but the throw is just bad enough that F5 has to jump up and back to catch it and she slams into the 3B coach 2 feet away before he has time to react, preventing her from making the catch. Sounds like the runner is out under the wording above due to (unintentionally) interfering with a play on a runner. Is that right?

Thanks.

Rubbish. There is nothing wrong with the wording, only people reading into the rule.

In your scenario, is F5 making a play on a runner or attempting to catch a bad throw? Though the coach cannot be expected to go "poof" into thin air because the defense makes a bad play, it does not come close to interfering with the defense's ability to make a play on another runner.

I am just trying to clarify if the rule means what it says (that coach interference with a batted or thrown ball must be intentional for the runner to be out, but that any coach interference with a play on a runner results in the runner being out) or if it was intended to mean that intentional coach interference with a batted or thrown ball or a play on the runner results in the runner being called out but unintentional interference in any of those cases does not.

My example was not very good, so I will simply stick with the question.

Matt, I think it is a valid question. As a lawyer and a grammarian, I see no reason why this rule cannot be read two ways:

or

In the first interpretation, the word "intentionally" is part of clause (a) but not clause (b). In the second interpretation, the word modifies both clauses.

Thank you, Alaska Ump, that was my point. I think the strict interpretation of the language of the rule is illustrated in your first example--the rule describes one situation of intentional interference and a second situation of interference without requiring it to be intentional.

I just wanted to know which way the rule was interpreted and enforced, because the rules were not written by grammarians and have some grammatical errors. So my question remains, are umpires taught (and is the rule enforced) that both types of interference MUST be intentional for the runner to be out, or only that interference with a batted or thrown ball must be intentional but that any interference with a play on the runner--intentional or not--results in the runner being called out?

If the former, then they should edit the rule to look like your second example (or just delete the second instance of the word "interferes") so the rule could not be interpreted two ways. If the latter, then the rule is written as it is to be enforced.

Which way is it interpreted and enforced?

Well, the count is now 0-2!

We've been through this quite a few times. The ASA rule book is meant to communicate in a simple manner, not to be a book on a summer reading list.

It is also meant to give direction, not create obnoxious legalities that have nothing to do with the game on the field.

Go read MLB's book or the NCAA football book and see what you get when you want the rules written in the manner you suggest.

Read the words presented and I think it reads quite clearly.

Then again, that is just my opinion and I am NOT a lawyer or grammarian, but a simple hi skewl gratiate.

Wait just one gosh dern second.


Are we sure this "grammarian" thing is a real thing you can be?

Mike:

I think you misinterpreted my point. I am not suggesting the rulebook be rewritten. I am not suggesting that we add obnoxious legalities. I siimply noted that Matt is correct -- from a grammatical view, the rule in question is equally valid from either perspective.

I see no need to rewrite the rule. I will join Matt in asking which interpretation is preferred.

Okay, let's break it down:

First point

"When a coach intentionally interferes with a batted or thrown ball",

"OR"

Second point

"interferes with the defensive team's opportunity to make a play on another runner".

Clarification

"A batted or thrown ball that unintentionally hits a base coach is not considered interference".

I don't see any glaring grammatical shortcomings and the punctuation pretty much breaks the first sentence down to two distinctive independent scenarios connected by the disjunction "or".

Ah, now I understand!


If you intentionally hit a coach with a ball, thats interference.

;)

Actually, I would not put that by some people to coach. "Just try to hit the coach with the ball" could become a defensive strategy if the rule did not require intent.

Don't think that is so far fetched as we all know there are coaches who tell their catchers to just nail the BR in the back and look for the call.