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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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."

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.