Coach protected in box

[tom]

A pickoff from the pitcher gets by F3 and rolls through the coach's box and towards the dugout. F3, in his attempt to chase down the ball, runs into the first base coach who made no attempt to avoid the fielder. At the time of the contact, the coach had both feet entirely inside the lines of the coach's box. R1 and R3 advanced on the wild throw.

                a. Call interference and leave the ball alive allowing for a possible play on R3 at the plate.
                                             b. Call "time" and call "that's interference," declare R1 out and return R3 to third base.
                                             c. Interference may be called only if the umpire decides that the base coach did something intentional to disrupt the play of the first baseman.
                                             d. “That is nothing," it is incidental contact as the coach is entitled to the protection of the coach's box.

[UmpJM]

C.

JM

[Guest]

The answer would be B if the fielder is judged to be in the act of fielding the ball.

 

Otherwise, base coaches are allowed on the field and can only be dinged for INT in this situation if their action is judged to be intentional, regardless of position in/out of the coaches box, as that rule is not strictly enforced and being in or out of the box provides no special protection.

[spiritump]

go with C

[noumpere]

I get answer b. and so does the NCAA. lol.

[noumpere]

Sorry, I posted up abopve and didn't realize this was on here twice.

 

But, the answer is B.

[Jocko]

I thought B as well. That is until Yoda said it's C. Now I gotta figure out what I'm missing.

[johnnyg08]

Yep. I had it right originally and was talked out of it. JM is rarely wrong. In fact this is the only time I've seen it. The man is human.

[JaxRolo]

I thought B as well. That is until Yoda said it's C. Now I gotta figure out what I'm missing.

 

A brain?   

[Jocko]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5FSXO4LInU&sns=em

[Jocko]

Can someone combine these threads? Givin me a deja-vu all over again

[noumpere]

Yep. I had it right originally and was talked out of it. JM is rarely wrong. In fact this is the only time I've seen it. The man is human.

Not that he needs me to defend him but C is "right" it's just not the "best answer."  It does need to be intentional, but just standing there when he had time to move is intentional and so you need to go to the next step and get the out.

[Jocko]

The man is human.

You sure? I googled him and he's listed right up there with Zeus, Mercury, Neptune, et al

[Guest]

Per 7.11, on field coaches must vacate any space required by a fielder in the act of fielding the thrown or batted ball. If the ball is in the vicinity of the coach, they must move, but if the ball is halfway down the RF line or well into foul territory, can anybody really justify classifying the fielder as being in the act of fielding?

 

The 'most correct' answer is clearly B, as C omits what to do with the base runners which would automatically disqualify it from consideration on a test. However, in the real world, C also qualifies as correct (try taking a 60 question exam with questions that are all like this). 

 

I concur with the notion that the more time and space a coach has to avoid a fielder, should they choose to remain absolutely stationary, the more intentional their actions are. 

[johnnyg08]

Yep. I had it right originally and was talked out of it. JM is rarely wrong. In fact this is the only time I've seen it. The man is human.

Not that he needs me to defend him but C is "right" it's just not the "best answer."  It does need to be intentional, but just standing there when he had time to move is intentional and so you need to go to the next step and get the out.

 

 

I agree.  

[UmpJM]

The NCAA may have "wanted" answer "B", but the sitch presented in the question, AS DESCRIBED, does not warrant an interference call or an out.

JM

[JaxRolo]

Can someone combine these threads? Givin me a deja-vu all over again

 

You can say that again!

[ikeequa]

Why would R1 be declared out? He didn't benefit from the coach being in the way.

[Jocko]

Why would R1 be declared out? He didn't benefit from the coach being in the way.

because an out always follows INT, and R1 is the one the "play" was being made on. IF you declare this sitch INT.

Sidebar - I concur that intent doesn't require movement. If 1BC sees the play develop around him and decides to freeze (becoming part of the play) I wouldn't disagree if my BU bangs him for it.

[UmpJM]

Jocko,

 

In the OP, there was no "play" - you had a fielder chasing a loose ball (NOT "...attempting to field a batted or thrown ball..") after an offensive error.

 

JM

[Jocko]

Jocko, In the OP, there was no "play" - you had a fielder chasing a loose ball (NOT "...attempting to field a batted or thrown ball..") after an offensive error. JM

Agreed. That's what I deduced after digging for why it wasn't "B" as I originally thought. Hence the "play" and the big IF.

[johnnyg08]

A coach is no more protected in the box than a batter is protected in the box on a play at the plate with R3 trying to score on a wild pitch to the back stop.  If the batter has time to vacate the position, he must do so.  Same for the coach.

[johnnyg08]

I think the question does say that the coach "makes no attempt to move" or something like that.  

[noumpere]

I know the question was about NCAA, but there's a similar play in OBR under 3-15 and we've been told to use OBR when not covered under NCAA.  i think the "just stands in the box" part of the question falls under the last part of the OBR play:

 

 

PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The

 

coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way

 

to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base.

 

Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the

 

umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no

 

interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it

 

appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

[johnnyg08]

I know the question was about NCAA, but there's a similar play in OBR under 3-15 and we've been told to use OBR when not covered under NCAA.  i think the "just stands in the box" part of the question falls under the last part of the OBR play:

 

 

PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The

 

coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way

 

to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base.

 

Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the

 

umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no

 

interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it

 

appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

 

 

yes, this is my exact point.  thanks for a concurring OBR post.

[NFUA_44]

I know the question was about NCAA, but there's a similar play in OBR under 3-15 and we've been told to use OBR when not covered under NCAA.  i think the "just stands in the box" part of the question falls under the last part of the OBR play:

 

 

PLAY: Batter hits ball to shortstop, who fields ball but throws wild past first baseman. The

 

coach at first base, to avoid being hit by the ball, falls to the ground and the first baseman on his way

 

to retrieve the wild thrown ball, runs into the coach. The batter-runner finally ends up on third base.

 

Whether the umpire should call interference on the part of the coach is up to the judgment of the

 

umpire and if the umpire felt that the coach did all he could to avoid interfering with the play, no

 

interference need be called. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the coach was attempting to make it

 

appear that he was trying not to interfere, the umpire should rule interference.

Thanks for the Ref.  Judgment and intent, two huge tools in our arsenal.