Ball Strikes 1st Base Coach

[fastpitch]

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.

[wadeintothem]

play on...

[fastpitch]

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by fastpitch

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.

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by fastpitch

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.

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.

[tcannizzo]

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?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

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).

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by wadeintothem

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.

[tcannizzo]

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?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

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"

[wadeintothem]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

?What?

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

[IamMatt]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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.

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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

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.

[IamMatt]

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.