Jump to content

Another runner contacts base coach

Gfoley4

By Gfoley4
in Professional

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 3995 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 34
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

johnnyg08
johnnyg08

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.     Yes, I read the interp from Harry's lead instructor.     If he were waving him home, I can promise you

umpschool
umpschool

If you made the argument that the coach assisted the runner in this situation, you would be entirely backed up by the rules. However, you would also be backed up by not calling it. It is entirely up t

Richvee
Richvee

^^^^^THIS^^^^  I was watching live. He absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , stepped in front of his runner for the sole purpose of stopping him. Ne didn't hold up a stop sign, he moved right into

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.  

 

Yes, I read the interp from Harry's lead instructor.  

 

If he were waving him home, I can promise you that he's not going to be in his way.  

  • Like 4
MikeSafari

MikeSafari

Posted
Posted

I tend to agree with @johnnyg08 though it seems like there was really minimal contact there in the first place.

 

Just get outta the way! Everybody will have a much nicer time if you do.

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

I'd guess that Torre et al. have reviewed some of these calls and raised the bar for what counts as "assistance." As I've posted on this topic elsewhere, this is the cheapest of outs, and we really should have a high bar.

 

I would have passed on this in a HS game. If a Mattingly-wannabe coach asked, I'd say that in my judgment the contact provided no substantial assistance. (FED has the same rule, 2-21-1c)

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I'd guess that Torre et al. have reviewed some of these calls and raised the bar for what counts as "assistance." As I've posted on this topic elsewhere, this is the cheapest of outs, and we really should have a high bar.

 

I would have passed on this in a HS game. If a Mattingly-wannabe coach asked, I'd say that in my judgment the contact provided no substantial assistance. (FED has the same rule, 2-21-1c)

 

Sure, but it should like a chicken - $ answer to a coach.  I argue that the coaches have a valid argument.  If that's not interference, what is?  The interference/obstruction standards for other people on the field are much, much lower.  The standard is so high right now, that it almost makes sense to not have the rule.  Almost.  

Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted

I'll try to take my Giant fan cap off for this one (especially against the Dodgers) but looking at this objectively, I don't see that the 3B coach actually assisted the runner here. The runner was already stopping and turning around when he bumped into the 3B coach.

 

I'd pass on this in any level I'm working.

 

The one time I did call this, the 3B coach grabbed the runner by the waist band and helped pick him up after he fell. That's about where my standard is for that, it has to be material assistance.

Umpire in Chief

Umpire in Chief

Posted
Posted

Interesting play. 

 

In this situation I don't have anything.

 

The rule reads:

 

In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base

 

The runner was already stopping, there was no immediate play on him.

webspinnre

webspinnre

Posted
Posted

I first posted this in another thread, and I'd lean toward a no, but in looking at it, it appears to me that it does result in the runner stopping a step or two earlier than he would have, and then gently pushing off to go back. With the ball being cut-off in the vicinity, I'd think there's at least a decent argument to be made. If the cutoff had made the throw to third, I think that's where things would've become interesting.

maven

maven

Posted
Posted

The one time I did call this, the 3B coach grabbed the runner by the waist band and helped pick him up after he fell. That's about where my standard is for that, it has to be material assistance.

 

Me too.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.  

 

.  

 

Think of it as a RR crossing gate. It's a signal to stop.  While it assists the runner in that it's a visual signal, it is not physically touching the runner now is it?

 

7.09(h) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

webspinnre

webspinnre

Posted
Posted

 

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.  

 

.  

 

Think of it as a RR crossing gate. It's a signal to stop.  While it assists the runner in that it's a visual signal, it is not physically touching the runner now is it?

 

7.09(h) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

 

 

Except that in this specific case, he did touch the runner, and an argument could be made that he physically assists him in returning to the base by slowing his momentum and allowing himself to be gently pushed off of.

umpschool

umpschool

Posted
Posted

If you made the argument that the coach assisted the runner in this situation, you would be entirely backed up by the rules. However, you would also be backed up by not calling it. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire whether the physical contact actually assisted the runner in advancing or returning. While contact is a prerequisite, contact, in itself, does not constitute interference. At umpire school we teach to use "In my judgment..." as often as possible before explaining your decision (of course, as long as it is a judgment decision).

  • Like 3
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

 

 

 

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.  

 

.  

 

Think of it as a RR crossing gate. It's a signal to stop.  While it assists the runner in that it's a visual signal, it is not physically touching the runner now is it?

 

7.09(h) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

 

 

Except that in this specific case, he did touch the runner, and an argument could be made that he physically assists him in returning to the base by slowing his momentum and allowing himself to be gently pushed off of.

 

 

If you made the argument that the coach assisted the runner in this situation, you would be entirely backed up by the rules. However, you would also be backed up by not calling it. It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire whether the physical contact actually assisted the runner in advancing or returning. While contact is a prerequisite, contact, in itself, does not constitute interference. At umpire school we teach to use "In my judgment..." as often as possible before explaining your decision (of course, as long as it is a judgment decision).

 

 

 

This is what I've been waiting for on these plays!  There is rule support on either side from one of the pros!  Thanks Hunter!!

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Uh, johnny, looks like you've got a little something on your nose there...

randomppgluver.gif?2

Not at all. I've been arguing that it could be interference for the better part of two weeks on both of these plays. Yet, time and time again, I get shot down because that's not how it was ruled in the games. To read that there's rule support to have called it (either way) and to have it written by one of the most authoritative people on this stuff on the planet, I feel like I stand on very firm ground with what I've been trying to say for two weeks. Don't misunderstand, I'm not saying I am right and they are wrong. What I am saying is that there's rule support on both sides.

Rich Ives

Rich Ives

Posted
Posted

 

 

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.  

 

.  

 

Think of it as a RR crossing gate. It's a signal to stop.  While it assists the runner in that it's a visual signal, it is not physically touching the runner now is it?

 

7.09(h) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

 

 

Except that in this specific case, he did touch the runner, and an argument could be made that he physically assists him in returning to the base by slowing his momentum and allowing himself to be gently pushed off of.

 

 

 

That wasn't the issue I was responding to (and quoted).  The issue was "I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist. "

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

It's a judgment call. Of course the rule is neutral. The debate is over the correct judgment, not the content of the rule.

I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist.  

 

.

 

Think of it as a RR crossing gate. It's a signal to stop.  While it assists the runner in that it's a visual signal, it is not physically touching the runner now is it?

 

7.09(h) In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, by touching or holding the runner, physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base.

 

Except that in this specific case, he did touch the runner, and an argument could be made that he physically assists him in returning to the base by slowing his momentum and allowing himself to be gently pushed off of.

 

 

That wasn't the issue I was responding to (and quoted).  The issue was "I just don't understand how intentionally standing in somebody's way isn't coach assist. "

It's a judgment call. Of course the rule is neutral. The debate is over the correct judgment, not the content of the rule.

Impeding your runner's forward progress is certainly assisting him in his efforts to get back to a base since it keeps him closer to the base.

  • Like 1
BuckeyeMike

BuckeyeMike

Posted
Posted

I'm firmly in the camp of illegal coach assistance on this play and the one we hashed out a week or two ago.    I think we're going to see more and more of this because it's not being called on the field.      You can see the coach sprint up and actually take an adjustment side-step to make SURE he's directly in the runner's projected path.

  • Like 2
Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

I'm firmly in the camp of illegal coach assistance on this play and the one we hashed out a week or two ago.    I think we're going to see more and more of this because it's not being called on the field.      You can see the coach sprint up and actually take an adjustment side-step to make SURE he's directly in the runner's projected path.

^^^^^THIS^^^^ 

I was watching live. He absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , stepped in front of his runner for the sole purpose of stopping him. Ne didn't hold up a stop sign, he moved right into his path to slow/stop him and contact was made. That's physical assistance in my mind. BuckeyeMike is spot on. If this isn't called you're going to start seeing coaches step in front of runners like a Duke basketball defender looking for a charge more and more. 

  • Like 3
johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

 

I'm firmly in the camp of illegal coach assistance on this play and the one we hashed out a week or two ago.    I think we're going to see more and more of this because it's not being called on the field.      You can see the coach sprint up and actually take an adjustment side-step to make SURE he's directly in the runner's projected path.

^^^^^THIS^^^^ 

I was watching live. He absolutely, beyond a shadow of a doubt , stepped in front of his runner for the sole purpose of stopping him. Ne didn't hold up a stop sign, he moved right into his path to slow/stop him and contact was made. That's physical assistance in my mind. BuckeyeMike is spot on. If this isn't called you're going to start seeing coaches step in front of runners like a Duke basketball defender looking for a charge more and more. 

 

 

Absolutely!  Would he be in his way if he were waving him home to score?  Not a chance.  That's been my argument for two weeks!  

Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted

There's nothing wrong with a coach stepping in front of his runner in and of itself. I'm not sure how that should factor in as a criterium on this play.

What physical assistance was given to the runner in this play? He was already stopping and changing directions when he collided with his coach. The coach didn't give him a push back to the base. He didn't grab him and hold him up from continuing on.

I just don't think this is enough to call.

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

There's nothing wrong with a coach stepping in front of his runner in and of itself......

....until the runner runs into him. Spin it any way you want, but if a runner runs into a coach, the coach has stopped the runner's forward momentum sooner than if they do not bump. 

  • Like 1
Welpe

Welpe

Posted
Posted

And he has to untangle from him before returning to the base. That's not an advantage gained. As I said, in this play the runner is already pulling up and changing his momentum.

Richvee

Richvee

Posted
Posted

And he has to untangle from him before returning to the base. irrelevant. The interference was the coach stopping the runner. What happens after is inconsequential to thew call. That's not an advantage gained. As I said, in this play the runner is already pulling up and changing his momentum. Maybe he was pulling up, but he certainly hadn't changed direction, or else there would have been no contact. 

Bottom line for me is the coach stopped his forward progress. For me that's the end all for a INT call. We'll agree to disagree as it's already been confirmed either call is acceptable here. 

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...