Coach physically assists
 

NFHS:

R1 on 2B with no outs. B2 hits to left field. R1 rounds 3B as coach is giving "stop" signal. B2 sees the stop signal, attempts to stop but cannot when she runs into the coach. After running into the coach, she quickly returns back to 3B as the ball is casually thrown from F7 to F6, i.e. there is not a close play at 3B.

SIT1: Coach was in the coach's box, giving stop signal by holding his hands straight over his head and runner hits him.
SIT2: Coach was several feet up the line toward home, giving stop signal by holding his hands straight over his head and runner hits him.
SIT3: Coach was in the coach's box, giving stop signal by holding one hand straight in front of him and contact is with runners arm.
SIT4: Coach was several feet up the line toward home, giving stop signal by holding one hand straight in front of him and contact is with runners arm.

I believe it is "physical assistance" in all situations but others have told me they feel differently. What say y'all?

1&2, absolutely nothing; 3&4, maybe, but not likely unless I see the coach actually do something to aide the runner.

The first thing I would say is that maybe you are putting too much emphasis on the coach's position. Being in or out of the coach's box isn't really a factor in calling this. The rules allow coaches to be out of the box while directing runners.

I don't think you're going to find specific interpretations for each of your scenarios, or any sort of all-inclusive list of every possible action by a coach that can possibly be interference. Each separate incident would be at the discretion and judgment of the individual umpire observing the play.

My personal belief is that you should be looking for willful and intentional actions by the coach. It is possible for a runner and coach to accidently make contact and that such contact can be ruled as incidental.

There was a play in MLB last year that was discussed on the baseball boards. A runner who rounded third was putting on the brakes and slipped in the grass. As he stopped, he barely brushed hands with the third base coach, who was standing in one spot giving the stop sign. It didn't appear that the touch was intentional on the coach's part. The 3B umpire called the runner out for coach's assistance.

The consensus of umpires commenting on that play (with the luxury of making the call from behind their keyboards after seeing multiple replays) was that they did not consider the coach's actions sufficient enough to consider it "assisting the runner". The seemingly unintentional "slight brush" of the runner's hand did not in any way alter his path, change his momentum or affect his decision to either advance or retreat.

I guess that two different umpires could judge the same play differently!

(1) I agree that is it not relevant. I only noted the multiple situations because one of the folks around here noted, "I wouldn't do anything if they were just in the coach's box not doing anything improper."

(2) This also is the gist of the conversations around here, as well as my disagreement. I do not see anything in the rules that says the runner is out if the coach "willfully and intentionally" physically assists a runner. I think it does not matter as to the coach's intentions. If it did, and if I was a coach, I'd be holding my stop sign up as I stood approximately 2 steps passed the bag so that the runner would have to clobber me squarely to run through my stop sign. (Hey, she's probably only 90 pounds. :) )

(3) I saw the play but did not see the baseball board discussions. I think this is what caused me to discuss it in our local meeting. (I agreed with the umpire's call on the field back then, but I agree with you, it is much easy to discuss in the comfort of our homes.)

Thanks for the input.

Nor would you find anything in the rules that says, "A pitcher merely touching the hands together for an instant meets the requirement for bringing the hands together for not less than one second", or, "A runner stopping between bases for 1-2 seconds meets the Look Back Rule requirement to immediately advance or retreat".

Point being, there are plenty of rules that seem to mean one thing at face value, but are interpreted differently- either by official written interpretations or through accepted custom and practice. I would be interested to see if there are any "official" interpretations about this play, as I don't recall ever seeing any.

I suppose that you could judge that the coach willfully positioned himself right in the runner's path for the purpose of using his body as a barricade to intentionally contact the runner if she overran the bag. That might be easier to sell if the coach set up closer to the bag than what you think he normally would, or jumped over into the runner's path at the last instant.

Uh - You intentionally stood in her path for the purpose of stopping her???
Wouldn't that count as willfully physically assisting?

:)

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. The play that was under discussion there was when a runner slides into the coach knocking them to the ground (don't recall how the runner got there but the important part for this discussion is the coach is on the ground and the runner is on top of them). The ruling was if the coach simply has a defensive nature, blocking or "catching" the runner as they fell there is nothing, but the instant the coach pushes the runner away from them to help them up that's when there is physical assistance.

Again this is umpire judgement and you can judge they assisted by being in the way in your senario...but I think most umpires would need a little more action from the coach to make them rule the coach actually physically assisted the runner.

That's what I was getting at when I said the coach needs to purposely change the runner's momentum, alter her path or affect her decision to either advance or retreat.

Side note...I think that I've called this maybe two times in ten years. But last year I had the chance to make a game-ending coach assisting the runner call in a tournament semi-final game!

Home team batting in the final inning, down by one with two outs, runner on first. The batter had a base hit to the outfield and the runner went from first to third. The only problem was that she remained on her feet at third and her momentum carried her across the bag, where she crashed into the third base coach.

The coach tried to get out of her way and up to that point I had "nothing". But then, as they got untangled, he grabbed the runner around the shoulders, spun her around and pushed her back toward the base. Now I have assisting the runner!

Lots of grumbles from the fans on that one. The third base coach bumped into me in the parking lot after the game and said, "I hate to say it, but you made the right call".

Thanks for all the very good input. There is a lot to consider. Reviewing it ahead of time will hopefully have me on my toes if something funky happens in the game.

BretMan, I agree with you that these are rare. Since '89 when I started, I can only recall having physically-assist type incidents 3 times: Two in men's slow pitch with "coach/player" pushing the runner from third as the ball is caught and one in NFHS where coach was trying to get out of the way of an overthrow to third base. His own runner pushed him out of the way as she rounded third and ran for home. The defensive coach argued I should rule out because, "He cannot touch her." But I had a no-call.

I've only had a few in 18 years. Last one was a HS coach who explained, "But Blue, she was falling down. If I hadn't caught her, she couldn't have scored!"

Could also be wreckless endangerment. Season-ending injury would be the last time that coach was ever in a coaches box.

And people don't believe this game is played everywhere!

I used Babel Fish to translate...
 

Ignore that post.

AWESOME!

For those playing the home game, the language in question is Russian (since many different languages use the cyrillic alphabet).

Someone on this forum gets after me if I don't identify the post I'm responding to. ;) :p :rolleyes: Yes, I know it was obvious before the moderator cleared it.