thrown ball hits 1b coach
 

Had this last night, simple ground ball was thrown from F6 to F1, but F1 had glove way off line and ball pegged 1B coach. Coach went down with injury. I immediately called dead ballandawarded runners 2 bases from throw, assuming the ball would have gone dead if coach was not there ( no-one backed up the throw). BR ended on 2B, R1 ended on third.

Afterr consulting the rulebook after the game (ISF) I note 8.10.p

The runner is not out when a coach unintentionally interferes with a thrown ball or batted fair ball while in the coaches box

Only problem is, that rule is merely a classification that runner is not out and coach is not ejected. It doesn't give any effect.

Anyone know if I got this one right?

Looks like a live ball to me (non ISF).

You have a rule directing you to kill the ball and award bases? If not, and I suspect you do not, it should have been......nothing. Coach hit with a thrown ball with not intent to INT is just a bad throw bouncing off personnel permitted to be where s/he was.

You did the best you could at the time.

Who knows.....it may have ended up exactly as you awarded bases.

Write it down and keep a journal (Thank you SteveM).......and you won't make those mistakes twice.

Joel

Journaling helped many times over the years.
And - when you journal, you can then look up the rule - and your memory doesn't get a chance to change over time.

just had a good look through, thrown ball is live when it strikes a coach.
oops

one for the journal.

I think I would have done the same thing as you did. Why? I did not kill the play because the ball hit the coach, but because the coach went down with an injury. At this point I am not allowing play to continue and I am awarding the bases that I feel the runners would have reached had the play not been killed due to an injury. I would have verbalized this to the coaches though that the award was not based on the overthrow itself, but based on the fact in my judgement the players would have reached the bases had the play not been killed. If they want to argue you have the safety aspect to fall back on. Coach, a potential injury to team personal is more important than keeping the ball alive right? If the coach disagrees they are just being cruel, but most would agree safety first. That is your "out" on a play like this.

Now, had the play not been killed because of a potential injury situation, I'm leaving the ball live and the play ends up the way the play ends up.

We had a situation in a slow pitch game I was observing (my game was over by this point). Ground ball to F6. F6 throws low to F1 and F1 misses the ball which strikes the batter-runner in the face and she goes down. The umpire immediately calls dead ball because of a potential injury situation. The thrown ball continues to roll (would not have been stopped had play continued) and goes under the fence. This occurred after the dead ball call from the umpire. The umpire awarded the runner second base on the play. Of course the defense argued the call. His point was a good one. A bad throw by the defense caused a potential injury situation to an offensive player. Had he not killed the play, the ball would have gone out of play, and the runner would have been awarded second base. His killing of the play because of an injury to an offensive player due to a mistake by a defensive player should not benefit the defense. If he did not award her the base, the defense would benefit from the poor throw striking the player in the face and thus the umpire killing the play.

The only issue with this is a potential injury to team personal. This becomes a potential safety issue and the number one job of an umpire is safety before anything else. When someone on the field suffers what could be a significant injury, kill the play then deal with the bases later. Better to kill the play, than have those few seconds play continued be the difference between a potentially less serious and a more serious situation.

No, it is not an issue. You have nothing to back up your ruling here.

Really,

I am not familiar with ISF rules, which I think the OP was using HOWEVER I can find that NFHS does cover this.

Rule 5-2-d NOTE and 10-2-3g. Given the term participant, as used in 5-2-d NOTE is not given, rule 10-2-3g can be applied in the event the umpire feels that continuation of play could result in further injury to the coach, who, I would consider a participant in the game.

In the ASA rules the situation would be a little rougher. Rule Supplement #29 only covers a player, as does 4-9. With that said, the spirit of rule 4-10 is that when someone on the field becomes injured seriously the game shall be stopped and the umpire will award bases that in the umpires judgement they would have reached had play not been stopped.

If you really want to argue that a coach should not be covered under the same rules that's fine, but this goes with the discussion earlier of common sense and logic in the rules. This is a case where logic should prevail and if an umpire feels a first base coach or third base coach is injured to the point of needing medical attention, the game should be stopped and then you deal with the awarding of bases after. The #1 priority is the safety of all involved.

It would have to be some kind of serious-looking injury (shot to the temple, perhaps that knocks the coach out cold?) for me to kill the ball because the coach was hit by a thrown ball. Immediate medical attention would be the concern, not issues like further injury.

I didn't get from the OP's statements that the injury was that serious. His concern was about whether the ball was dead by rule (it wasn't).

ISF & ASA are basically the same, covers players. And I'm not watching coaches, I'm watching the play.

Before the rule changed, I wonder how many people died or suffered life-altering injuries because someone did not get attention 10-20 seconds earlier.

I now expect a multitude of "examples" or suppositions, but I doubt there will be much to support as fact.

In my specific situation, we're using ISF. Some more reading up leads me to 10.8.f

" In case of injury, except in the umpires' judgement with a serious injury..."TIME" shall not be called until all plays in progress have been completed, or runners have been held at their base."
EFFECT: " In the case of injury, when time is called, the ball is dead and runners may be awarded a base or bases that they would have made, in the umpires' judgement, had the injury not occurred."

Using my original situation, there's a bit of debate that can follow. Had the coach been studying elsewhere in the box, she would not have been hit, and no injury would have occurred, therefore ball would have been dead and runners would have received the bases anyway. This clashes directly with the ruling on a thrown ball hitting a coach.

I think, looking back now,I got it right. Stopping play due to injury is a subjective call of the blue, and in my opinion, the coach appeared to be not seriously injured, but enough to cause her to go down... I've the added bonus of knowing these players for years inside and outside the game, she's a hearty tough girl and wouldn't fake it.

When I'm referring to the rule, that is all that I am doing, referring to the rule that only mentions players, not game participants like the HS rules in the US do.

Obviously, every bit of this is subjective and open to an umpire's judgment and I do understand the concern and have no problem with how you handled the play.

But remember, we are talking a "serious injury". What is serious to you, may not be serious to me. A twisted ankle can cause loud screams and big tears and panicky parents and coaches to run onto the field, but is not serious enough to stop the play.

Again, this has only been a rule in recent years and I wonder why? What happened in the previous 7 decades that lead to rules based on knee-jerk reactions?

How many of us grew up not wearing helmets when skiing (rec) or riding a bicycle or a horse? Anyone here ever play tackle football without gear? Since we are discussing our friends in Europe, are the similar rules for rugby, soccer, hurling, etc. that stop a team moving to score when a player goes down?

Serious question. I wonder if anyone has any numbers supporting the affect this rule has on injured individuals.

Don't stop play unless you feel seconds are going to matter and "life threatening" comes to mind. Doesn't sound like the case here. Not even close.

Without regard to whether the injury merited stopping play, I don't think you're reading this right. The rule is not what would have happened if the injured participant had not been hit with the ball. It is what would have happened if the ball hitting the participant had not resulted in an immediate injury.
Suppose we have a deep fly ball to F9 who is about to make the catch when she runs into the fence and hurts herself badly enough you want to stop the game [unlikely though that scenario is]. As a result, instead of catching the ball, the runner would have had time to run to third. If you kill the ball immediately, you award third not call the BR out.

Which is the type of stuff that scares me about prematurely killing a play. Some umpires have a pretty good sense of how things would have worked out, but some really go off the deep end "what iffing" themselves to death trying to justify everything down to the last inch. And then a coach comes out and sells them a BS bill of goods that just makes thing that much more difficult for everyone.

When you do have to make such an application, I suggest when the play is over, get together with your partner(s), have a quiet discussion. Take your time to share what you know that did happen, what you may have anticipated at the beginning of the play and what you think would have happened had the play not been killed and include personal knowledge/observations of the ability of the players involved.

Cover as much as you can to eliminate as much of an argument that a coach is going to bring. Have this discussion away from the coaches and when you come out, know what you are going to do, announce it and move on. If a coach wants to argue, simply thank him/her for their input and restart the game. Having another conversation will not help any part of the situation unless, for some reason, the coach has a valid point that you did not consider. "What ifs" are not valid points.

xtremeump
 

Irish, very good post, thank you

It does depend on the level of injury. If the throw hits the coach in the head, knocking them out, I'm killing the play. If it hits them in the mouth and I see teeth flying out, I'm killing the play. If it hits them in the knee and they go down, we stop play when the play stops. IIRC the OP said they were obviously injured, but did not specify what the injury was. Obviously the seriousness of an injury to anyone is subject to the umpires judgement.

What would you do in this situation? You have an elderly player who after hitting the ball (to the outfield) falls and lays motionless for a couple seconds halfway down the base line. When I see an elderly person motionless on the field, even for a second, I'm killing the play and my first concern is the player. As it turned out, he had tripped and fallen and was motionless from embarrassment.


My first thought was massive heart attack, so massive embarrassment was a great result.

And my first thought will be get the ball to first.

Now, add in the fact the defensive team had the same thought I did, not about getting an out, but concern for the opponent. The first two people to the player were opposing team members with medical training. (It was a team of doctors and nurses that was on defense at the time).

The end result of the play was that the runner was awarded 1st base, but he voluntarily left the base because he did not feel he deserved it. The defense had no problem with hime getting first base, as they won 20-0 in 3 innings anyway.