Assist?
 

R1 on 3rd, R2 on 2nd, 2 outs. Ball hit to left.

R1 crosses the plate easily, but misses the plate. R2 crosses the plate. Coach prevents R1 from entering the dugout and tells her to touch the plate, which she does.

Defensive coach calls time and asks, "Why don't we have an out for that coach pushing his player back to touch the plate?"

How do you answer this question?

R1 can't retouch after a subsequent runner has scored.

Hence, you can't assist that runner.

Hmmm... say that to the coach, and all you'll get is a blank stare... he asked you why there's no out for assisting the runner.

So do you say what ST said and add this? (PS to all --- I'm not asking the rule. I know the rule. I'm asking you how YOU would answer that exact question from the coach.)

No, you have to dumb it down - they're coaches.

How did the coach prevent R1 from entering dugout?

Absolutely, too dumb to have one of his players appeal the missed base.

MTD, Sr.

coach i never saw the coach push the runner back to the plate. as you describe the situation, this is a valid answer.

because coach, in this play, the lead runner can no longer be assisted.

or for you purists, "coach the rules will not allow me"

(pause for blank stare)
now coach do you have another question?

How did the coach stop the player from entering the dugout.......important.....

jOEL

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.

xtreamump
 

+1 (out)

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.

I like that

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.

that is a winner. and moot as andy said to boot. you get the out if the coach gets his team to appeal and you do not suggest in any manner the appeal route.

i believe if you use maark's words with the post before it then you have your answer and you state i have made my ruling, let's play ball. good situation

And?

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.

Sorry, those that asked this... I was away from the computer the entire weekend.

The coach grabbed her, and as he was telling her to go retouch, he turned her around and gave her a push.

(For those saying this was important ... why?)

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."

It would have been important only if an assisting call would have been valid. The OP doesn't infer whether the direction was physical or not. Even if physical, I would think it would have to actually assit the runner. For example, if the coach just came to the dugout entrance and put up his hands and she walked into the coach, I would have nothing unless there was a movement (extend the arms) to prod the runner to return to the plate.

With the trailing runner scoring, there was nothing with which the coach to assist.

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.

Given all this time to think about it I think I would say "That runner has completed her baserunning responsibilities so I can't have an out for assisting a runner that is no longer running the bases coach"

To me that is a general answer that provides all the important info (why I dont' have an out) without giving away anything about the appeal. Some might argue that it makes the coach believe that I think she touched home....I can't argue that might be inferred in that statement but if ever asked by the defensive coach I could say "that was not my intent, I meant that another runner had scored so that runner could no longer re-touch the plate, so her baserunning responsibilities were done". Honestly I think if a defensive coach came out and started to talk to me about this play he/she would eventually ask something about that runner not touching home and in effect would make an appeal.

Absolutely ... which is why I did not think the manner of the assist was relevant when I first posted.

xtreanump
 

I am going to have an out even if I have to apply common sense. This is very good and healthy discussion. (Do not let it happen)

What is the out for? The runner who appears to have been assisted was not actually assisted - she was no longer even a runner at that point.

I agree with mbcrower what is the out for? I have a question for you. Let's take the assisting the runner out of this play for a minute. If this situation had occurred and the runner just though 'O maybe I didn't touch' on her own and that runner then touched home after a following runner had scored. Would you have considered that a proper re-touch and ruled the runner safe if the defensive properly appealed that runner missing the plate??

I am hoping that you would have ruled that runner out in my play listed above, since that's a straight by the book ruling. So if you agree that in the above situation that the runner isn't allowed to re-touch home once a following runner has scored, then what in the OP is the out for?? There was nothing for that coach to assist the runner in doing. Applying common sense isn't always a bad thing, but it should not be done when it is in direct conflict with the rules, as it would be if you call an out in this case.

And I certainly hope you're not going to talk the coach in to appealing the missed base.

How about assisting the runner into deceiving the inept defense that they had no appeal? I mean we've taken the position in this thread that the coach didn't help the runner. But if she obviously missed the plate and we would have had an appeal but because the coach physically assisted her to go back to the plate we didn't then he did assist her.
I'm not sold on that but wondered what you all thought. (My biggest concern is that we couldn't know if he was guilty of anything until after we see if the defense appeals.)

Me?? I'm not talking them into or out of anything!

It's on the defense to know the rule. Once the second runner scores, it doesn't matter if the lead runner goes back and touches the plate, she is still subject to appeal up until the next pitch is thrown. If the defense thinks that the coach pushing her back toward the plate to touch it takes away their appeal, that's not my problem. I will answer the question from the coach about the "assist" in the same manner that we have discussed previously in this thread, but I will not indicate to the coach that he has an appeal available.

Now...what would you all say to informing the coach about the ruling and explaining that the appeal was available at a later point in the game, if the situation presented itself?

No play on either runner.... Where does NCAA require a signal and a verbal?

No, I meant xtreamump. I'm not sure how he thought he would get an out without hinting to the D coach that they need to appeal.

:eek:

Re-read that and get back to me - is it possible we are overthinking????

:D

I'd say sometimes we feel too much of a need to 'splain things.
If a coach really wants to know, let him/her ask off the field.....


PS - I admit to being guilty sometimes - and I always regret it!

I'm not initiating any discussion. If the coach wants to ask later, fine, so long as he is calm and professional about it.

It's always possible I'm overthinking it. And I'm not going there, just wondered if anybody thought there was meat there.

7.1.1.2.5 (a) page 68 under appeals

Doesn't that rule assume that there was either a tag attempt by the catcher, or that the catcher had possession of the ball in the vicinity of home plate?

It doesn't make sense for an umpire to be yelling, "No tag!", when a runner crosses the plate while the ball is still in the outfield. :confused:

xtreamump
 

It must be me , even in a 10U JO fast pitch softball game in this sitch here, (I DO NOT SAY ANYTHING OR HINT TO ANY COACH) I Officiate. I know that if coaches that see an opposing coach physically assisting ???? a runner back to the dish after another runner has scored I am expecting a proper appeal. Again it must be just here, because it looks like everyplace beside here there is a bunch of blank stares, between everyone involved in the game that I love. Maybe I hurry up and get a pitch ?

yes, it does. but it also means you are alerting the defense on the runner missing the plate if the catcher makes no attempt.