Coach interference

[RKBUmp]

You mean FED 7-4-12. While it does say team members and team members in the definition indicate players on the lineup card, the index under coaches interference refers you to 7-4-12.

[jmkupka]

Yup... 7.6.I, waaay at the bottom of the page (2009 book I have in work). Best I should look at all the rules on the page.

[Ed Maeder]

This is 2014. Think your book is a little out dated?

[jmkupka]

Yes it is... working only PONY for past 2 yrs, & a trusty old ASA book was still in my glove compartment when I needed a rule citing while at work...

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

You mean FED 7-4-12. While it does say team members and team members in the definition indicate players on the lineup card, the index under coaches interference refers you to 7-4-12.

The rulebook actually references 3-5-4 (doesn't apply), 3-5-5, and 8-6-16 under coach: interference by.

Under interference: Coach it references 7-4-12 and 8-6-16.


This is one thing I hate about the NFHS rules in multiple sports, they run you around in circles trying to find the correct answer.

Since the coach is not a team member, I can't see 7-4-12 being applied (under this years rules) because of the term team member in 7-4-12, thus the applicable rules must be 3-4-5 and 8-6-16, both of which state under the penalty that the runner closest to home is out.

I don't agree with this. In my opinion, the batter should be out, because they would be the person out had the interference not occurred.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Apply 7-4-12, as the index suggests; it is the rule that was used (and remains intended to be used) PRIOR to the new definitions. Simply consider it an editorial change that failed to be made (team member changed to team personnel) when they decided they needed the new definitions.

Sometimes it is beneficial to stop responding to yourself en masse and listen to what others are saying. Sounds like you are arguing with yourself, and losing.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

Apply 7-4-12, as the index suggests; it is the rule that was used (and remains intended to be used) PRIOR to the new definitions. Simply consider it an editorial change that failed to be made (team member changed to team personnel) when they decided they needed the new definitions.

Sometimes it is beneficial to stop responding to yourself en masse and listen to what others are saying. Sounds like you are arguing with yourself, and losing.

No, I am following the argument that a coach who knows the rules would make, which is 7-4-12 is not the rule applicable under the 2014 rulebook (even though it should be).

Also, you site that rule says use 7-4-12. The rulebook index also does reference rules 3-5-5 and 8-6-16 as interference by a coach.

Given the way the rules are, it is not as clear cut as it seems with using 7-4-12 for the ruling. You may disagree, but I can not use the 2013 rulebook to make a call in the 2014 season, even if the change is just an editorial change. The simple FACT is 7-4-12 does not apply to a coach who is in the coaches box and interferes with a foul fly.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

No, I am following the argument that a coach who knows the rules would make, which is 7-4-12 is not the rule applicable under the 2014 rulebook (even though it should be).

Also, you site that rule says use 7-4-12. The rulebook index also does reference rules 3-5-5 and 8-6-16 as interference by a coach.

Given the way the rules are, it is not as clear cut as it seems with using 7-4-12 for the ruling. You may disagree, but I can not use the 2013 rulebook to make a call in the 2014 season, even if the change is just an editorial change. The simple FACT is 7-4-12 does not apply to a coach who is in the coaches box and interferes with a foul fly.

Yes it does. And more to the fact, 3-5-6 does as well.

Rule 3-5 in general deals with Coaching. So what comes under that section (3-5-1 thru 3-5-7) applies primarily to coaches.

When it comes to foul fly balls, 3-5-6 specifically deals with this, not 3-5-5. And it says the batter is out. Even though it refers to team members and not team personnel, the fact that it's listed under 3-5 implies that the coach is included.

7-4-12 is just a direct quote of 3-5-6 to allow for the rule to include base runners as well as coaches.

Argue semantics if you want. The simple fact is, when a coach interferes with a fielder trying to catch a foul fly ball, the batter is the one ruled out, primarily under both 3-5-6.

[chapmaja]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Yes it does. And more to the fact, 3-5-6 does as well.

Rule 3-5 in general deals with Coaching. So what comes under that section (3-5-1 thru 3-5-7) applies primarily to coaches.

When it comes to foul fly balls, 3-5-6 specifically deals with this, not 3-5-5. And it says the batter is out. Even though it refers to team members and not team personnel, the fact that it's listed under 3-5 implies that the coach is included.

7-4-12 is just a direct quote of 3-5-6 to allow for the rule to include base runners as well as coaches.

Argue semantics if you want. The simple fact is, when a coach interferes with a fielder trying to catch a foul fly ball, the batter is the one ruled out, primarily under both 3-5-6.

I agree the batter should be out, however, you still have to use the rules AS WRITTEN, and as written, they don't support the batter being out, they support the runner closest to home being out, because of the use of 1 word. Are you going to tell the coach that the Fed rule makers screwed up and did not intend for this to be the result? That would have to be the result because there is no other support given the current written word of the rules.

In this case you better hope the coach isn't one of a couple in my area that know the book basically word for word and will use this type argument as needed.

If this ever actually happens, there is going to be a problem because it most likely will result in a coach being ejected from the game for arguing the call.

The point of this discussion is more that the Fed rule makers need to look at all their rules when they make a change to terminology such as defining team personnel and team members.

Again, under the spirit of the rules, the batter should be out, because the interference allowed them not to be put out, and it should have no bearing on the runner closest to home, because they should not be off the base significantly in the first place.

[PATRICK]

I'd tell him that the BR is out and if he doesn't like it, he can protest!

Oh, wait, there're no protests in PIAA.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by chapmaja

I agree the batter should be out, however, you still have to use the rules AS WRITTEN, and as written, they don't support the batter being out, they support the runner closest to home being out, because of the use of 1 word. Are you going to tell the coach that the Fed rule makers screwed up and did not intend for this to be the result?

In not so many words, Yes.

Again, read what I wrote. Rule 3-5 is about Coaching. 3-5-6 covers what happens when a batted foul fly ball is interfered with. Since you find this under the Coaching rule, that is written evidence that the rule applies to coaches.

If the only rule on interfering with a batted foul fly ball was 7-4-12, then I can find merit with your argument. But because it's also under 3-5-6, it's obvious to me the intent of the ruling covers coaches as well.