Assist?

[EsqUmp]

This is certainly an odd one. I think that I would softly turn the conversation toward one about appeals and let the coach figure it out.

There seems to be a blending of two different rules: 1 - physically assisting a runner & 2 - touching or retouching bases in a legal order. While they should be read together, I'm not so sure that they should be blended into one.

Can you not assist someone to do something that they aren't permitted to do?

The rules say (for the 'purists') that you can't assist a runner after they have scored. The fact that another runner has also score neither changes the fact that R1 scored (albeit missing home plate) and 2 that the coach physically assisted her back to the base. I do see the trouble with the "assist" part but nothing seems to say you still can't have an out for that.

Either way, I should be walking away with an out.

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by esqump

this is certainly an odd one. I think that i would softly turn the conversation toward one about appeals and let the coach figure it out.

There seems to be a blending of two different rules: 1 - physically assisting a runner & 2 - touching or retouching bases in a legal order. While they should be read together, i'm not so sure that they should be blended into one.

Can you not assist someone to do something that they aren't permitted to do?

The rules say (for the 'purists') that you can't assist a runner after they have scored. The fact that another runner has also score neither changes the fact that r1 scored (albeit missing home plate) and 2 that the coach physically assisted her back to the base. I do see the trouble with the "assist" part but nothing seems to say you still can't have an out for that.

Either way, i should be walking away with an out.

+1 (out)

[BretMan]

No one likes an OOJ (Overly-Officious Jerk).

If the runner going back to touch the plate is moot, then I would say that any assistance from the coach is also moot.

[EsqUmp]

Originally Posted by BretMan

No one likes an OOJ (Overly-Officious Jerk).

And?

[x-tremeump]

Originally Posted by BretMan

No one likes an OOJ (Overly-Officious Jerk).

If the runner going back to touch the plate is moot, then I would say that any assistance from the coach is also moot.

This is an OFFICIAL FORUM (SOFTBALL) we should be assisting each other. The comment was well received by Esq ump, No where was there anything in there that was an OOJ, it was a clear and informative comment.

[BretMan]

Originally Posted by xtreamump

This is an OFFICIAL FORUM (SOFTBALL) we should be assisting each other. The comment was well received by Esq ump, No where was there anything in there that was an OOJ, it was a clear and informative comment.

Sorry if anyone was offended by me repeating another poster's own words. If you find the term "overly-officious jerk" insulting, then maybe you should take it up with the person who coined the phrase and introduced it to the forum.

I would consider calling this runner out for being assisted by the coach as being overly-officious, because I don't believe the out is warranted (for reasons already stated).

Once the trailing runner scores, the lead runner who missed the plate may no longer correct her mistake. Thus, her opportunity to run the bases has ended. If she no longer has the right to run the bases, then you can't consider whatever the coach did as assisting her in running the bases.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by xtreamump

This is an OFFICIAL FORUM (SOFTBALL) we should be assisting each other. The comment was well received by Esq ump, No where was there anything in there that was an OOJ, it was a clear and informative comment.

Maybe the point of my post was unclear, as I thought it was completely clear that assisting the runner at this point is NOT an out (it can't be ... assisting her in doing something she can't do anyway is not assisting the runner)The point of my question (addressed well by cteben and ronald) was ... how do you answer the question about why the runner was not out on the apparent assist, without tipping off the coach that there's still an appeal play available to him.

[MNBlue]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Maybe the point of my post was unclear, as I thought it was completely clear that assisting the runner at this point is NOT an out (it can't be ... assisting her in doing something she can't do anyway is not assisting the runner)The point of my question (addressed well by cteben and ronald) was ... how do you answer the question about why the runner was not out on the apparent assist, without tipping off the coach that there's still an appeal play available to him.

I think there could be debate on both sides of whether or not you need to worry about tipping off the coach. I think that preventive officiating gives us the ability and responsibility to prevent a coach from intentionally or otherwise breaking the rules. If they chose to do so anyway, that is on them. I don't think it falls under preventive officiating to lead an opposing coach down the road of "they did something illegal and I can't tell you what it is but you need to figure it out so I can call someone out".

I would say what has already been stated: "Coach, because the second runner has already scored, the first runner cannot return to touch the base. Therefore, the coach can't be penalized for assisting her in doing something she can't do."

[cteben]

the issue is gonna be tipping off the appeal. either way, if appealed, you'll be blamed for hinting it, even if you did nothing to suggest it.

I've said this before, and I say it again. better to loudly respond with "I got NOTHING" than to be a do nothing by saying nothing and/or doing nothing, or even worse to respond in a manner that could be construed as a tip-off.

since you are damned if you do, and damned if you dont, just stay with a "I got nothing" answer until the issue goes away, or someone on the team, usually the smartest one realizes and requests or makes the appeal.

now, if you are doing college ball, as umpire at the plate, you are required to signal safe along with announcing a "No Tag" verbal. with that ncaa verbal requirement, if they dont appeal, they cant blame us.

[HugoTafurst]

Originally Posted by xtreamump

+1 (out)

I'm still looking at the idea that the coach "assisiting" the player had nothing to do with any possible play or action.

Since a following runner had scored, her re-touching or not retouching home would make no difference.