Another runner contacts base coach

[Welpe]

It's absolutely relevant because the wording of the rule is the coach assisting the runner. If he's hindering him, that's the opposite of assisting. I will agree to disagree as well but don't accuse me of spinning it when you're doing plenty of your own. The bottom line for me is that the runner was not actually assisted.

[Lindsay]

Is it time for MLB to issue a bulletin to teams about this yet?

[ricka56]

Is it time for MLB to issue a bulletin to teams about this yet?

 

Or a bulletin to umpires. There were relatively recently two plays where the runner ran into the 3B coach. Neither was a flagrant attempt to assist the runner. One was called interference, the other not. I think MLB has to opine as to whether that kind of incidental contact merits an interference call or not. If MLB wants that called interference, that's fine, but lets make it clear so that it can be called that way consistently. If MLB deems that kind of incidental contact not interference, then lets make that clear as well.

[grayhawk]

Interference wasn't called on either play.

[MikeSafari]

I'm with @umpschool on this one: I think the rules would back you up if you decided to call it or if you decided not to. If there was going to be a play on buddy over at 3rd, I'd give a bit more thought about calling the interference, but I'm always going to try grab the clean end of the stick, which in this case is not to call it.

 

It all looks different if there's suddenly a throw behind the runner and a bang-bang play at 3rd.

[maven]

I'm with @umpschool on this one: I think the rules would back you up if you decided to call it or if you decided not to.

 

But there's nothing substantive in that: you can say that about ANY infraction. If I judge that the batter hindered the catcher and rule BI, then the rules will back me. If I judge there's no hindrance so no BI, then the rules will back that too. Same with OBS, or a swing, or a safe/out. You can't use the rules to assess judgment.

 

Now, if the point is that the video depicts a borderline case, and in borderline cases either judgment will be supported, then that's substantive and informative. But that has nothing to do with "rules backing," it is rather a point about the gray area concerning what counts as "physical assistance" in the coach INT rule.

[MikeSafari]

it is rather a point about the gray area concerning what counts as "physical assistance" in the coach INT rule.

 

This is what I was going for I just chimed in to echo @umpschool's response earlier. At all but the highest levels I do, I wouldn't be calling this interference.

[ricka56]

Interference wasn't called on either play.

This coach interference call was recently posted...but it was from a few years ago.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v11759303

[hbk314]

 

Interference wasn't called on either play.

This coach interference call was recently posted...but it was from a few years ago.

 

http://m.mlb.com/video/v11759303

 

And that's one that's clearly incorrect. Marquez wasn't even looking when the potential for contact was there.

[mbrown2097]

No excuse for a coach to ever contact a base runner.  If they do, they aren't very good at it.  I'd have very little rope for a coach that did it on purpose as shown.!!!