Coach physically assists

[tcannizzo]

Dumb question: What about giving the player a high-five on an out-of-park home run?

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Dumb question: What about giving the player a high-five on an out-of-park home run?

Giving a high 5 is not physically assisting.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst

Giving a high 5 is not physically assisting.

Giving a high 5 is physically congratulating. Nothing in the rules against that.

Besides, in ASA, the ball is dead on a home run. Anyone can physically assist a runner when the ball's dead.

[DaveASA/FED]

The following play was posted on the ASA website July 2010, so you can get an out during a home run.

Rule 8 Section 7E The Runner is out:

Play: (Fast Pitch) with one out B2 hits an over the fence home run. While rounding 1B the runner stumbles and appears to have been injured. The first base coach (a) rushes on to the field to make sure B2 is ok. While checking the player for injuries the coach directs B2 back to 1B because they missed the base or (b) after B2 gets up and continues to 2B, the coach sprints onto the field, grabs B2 and tells B2 to come back to touch 1B.

Ruling: Rule 8 Section 7E addresses an offensive team member other than a runner that physically assists a runner while the ball is live. There is also an exception for when a runner scores and misses home plate.

An over the fence home run considered, by definition of a Dead Ball, as a ball that is not in play. We have other rules that apply when runners must run the bases on over the fence home runs.

A home run awards the batter 4 bases without liability to be put out except under appeal or protest. In the case of (a) once the coach came onto the field to check a possible injured play the umpire should call time to see if the player needed to be replaced. (Rule 4, Section 10) If the coach helps the player up and directs them to touch first base again there is not violation of the rules. In (b) the coach specifically went onto the field to grab the runner and assisted B2 in returning to touch 1B. In doing so the coach has taken away the ability of the defense to appeal the runner for missing 1B and therefore should be called out for a violation of Rule 8 Section 7E.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by DaveASA/FED

The way it was described to me at a clinic some years ago is the coach has to do something to assist the runner, merely having contact is not assisting the runner.

What if there's accidental contact that assists the runner's decision? Had this last summer in men's USSSA slow pitch:

Runner on second. Base hit to the outfield. Runner doesn't slow down as he rounds third. Throw is made to the plate. Runner bumps into the coach who's about 20 feet down the line from third. Runner, having lost all his momentum, scampers back to third safe.

The coach was not trying to stop the runner's advance. The contact was accidental. But I ruled the runner out because, in my opinion, the runner possibly benefited from the contact.

Had there been no impending play at the plate--say the ball was still rolling the gap and the runner, after the bump, continued home uncontested--I wouldn't have called anything. But I thought it would be unfair to the defense if they were denied a chance to put the runner out at home as a result of the contact.

Right or wrong call?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

What if there's accidental contact that assists the runner's decision? Had this last summer in men's USSSA slow pitch:

Runner on second. Base hit to the outfield. Runner doesn't slow down as he rounds third. Throw is made to the plate. Runner bumps into the coach who's about 20 feet down the line from third. Runner, having lost all his momentum, scampers back to third safe.

The coach was not trying to stop the runner's advance. The contact was accidental. But I ruled the runner out because, in my opinion, the runner possibly benefited from the contact.

Had there been no impending play at the plate--say the ball was still rolling the gap and the runner, after the bump, continued home uncontested--I wouldn't have called anything. But I thought it would be unfair to the defense if they were denied a chance to put the runner out at home as a result of the contact.

Right or wrong call?

Don't know about U-trip, but speaking ASA, I believe you overthought the play and made an inappropriate ruling.

Now, if in your judgment, the coach stepped in front of the runner to stop him/her, I can see that as aiding the runner, but not from what you described.

[chymechowder]

yeah, U-trip has the same key phrase:

"[baserunner is out] When anyone other than another Runner physically assists him while the ball is in play."

I agree that my call might've been wrong. I guess what's still tricky for me is whether we're supposed to divine the intent of the coach.

we all agree that if a coach puts a bear hug around a wayward runner who was gonna be thrown out by a mile, and the runner goes back safely to third---that's an out.

and the reason he's out because the runner benefitted as a result of the physical contact, right?

so if a runner benefits (or potentially benefits) as a result of accidental physical contact, is that any less of an infraction?

dont get me wrong. I'm not looking to nitpick shirtsleeves grazing against each other. or even if the runner stumbles over the coach's foot--if the runner continues home, there's no upside for the offense. no "assistance."

[AtlUmpSteve]

It strikes me that too many here are relying on EXACTLY what ASA attempted to take OUT of the decision process regarding interference. It does not appear anywhere in the rule that we need to consider even one little bit what a coach's intentions are. If 1) there is a possible play that can be interfered with, and if 2) the coach (or anyone else who is not a runner) physically assists a runner, either intentionally or unintentionally, the runner should be ruled out, according to the rule.

That said, I agree it is easier to ignore minor contact as incidental if you believe it is inadvertent; and I agree it is easier to consider a potential play has been available if the coach appears to intentionally contact. But, that is secondary thought process, not the basic rule. Let's not focus on secondary thoughts over the primary decision. Stay with the rule, AND the intent of the rule; you cannot disregard the rule itself.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

It strikes me that too many here are relying on EXACTLY what ASA attempted to take OUT of the decision process regarding interference. It does not appear anywhere in the rule that we need to consider even one little bit what a coach's intentions are. If 1) there is a possible play that can be interfered with, and if 2) the coach (or anyone else who is not a runner) physically assists a runner, either intentionally or unintentionally, the runner should be ruled out, according to the rule.

That said, I agree it is easier to ignore minor contact as incidental if you believe it is inadvertent; and I agree it is easier to consider a potential play has been available if the coach appears to intentionally contact. But, that is secondary thought process, not the basic rule. Let's not focus on secondary thoughts over the primary decision. Stay with the rule, AND the intent of the rule; you cannot disregard the rule itself.

The problem is that this is not interference, but it is simple. If the coach provides physical assistance, intentional or not, the runner is out.

However, it should be something the coach does that assists the runner. I believe I had a pretty good example of a no call a few years back where the 3BC was waving the runner around 3B while watching the ball in LF. Runner tripped and wiped out the coach. The runner without any help from the coach, got up and scored. The coach just laid on the ground. Did not turn, did not push the player up or off, just laid there.

AFAIC, the coach did not do anything to assist the runner.