Appeal granted after batter misses home plate on home run

[Stk004]

13 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Batter hits a home run out of the park and misses third base, which the 3B coach sees, but the runner can't hear him because the fans are cheering loudly.  3B coach chases him down, grabs him and pushes him back towards third.  Did the physical assistance confer an advantage?

 

6 minutes ago, maven said:

I thought we were talking about retired/scored runners.

 

5 hours ago, maven said:

I disagree: this is an advantage infraction, and when the defense has no opportunity to play on a runner (ball is dead) physical assistance confers no advantage.

Naturally, there's a FED case play from 2003 or something that rules otherwise.

General philosophy should be: when in doubt, it's NOT a violation (except for safety).

While we were talking about a scored runner, this would still be a dead ball situation with the BR completing an award. I'd imagine this falls under a coach physically assisting a runner as I see no criteria for the ball to be live. Even though runners may not be put out while the ball is not in play, this isn't the defense putting out a runner. 

OBR 6.01(a)(8) It is interference by a batter or runner when: 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;

[grayhawk]

7 minutes ago, Stk004 said:

 

 

While we were talking about a scored runner, this would still be a dead ball situation with the BR completing an award. I'd imagine this falls under a coach physically assisting a runner as I see no criteria for the ball to be live. Even though runners may not be put out during while the ball is not in play, this isn't the defense putting out a runner. 

OBR 6.01(a)(8) It is interference by a batter or runner when: 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;

My comments were pertaining to Fed:

2-21-1:  Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

c. a coach physically assists a runner during playing action.

3-2-2:  No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action.

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

s. is physically assisted by a coach. (note the absence of "during playing action.")

I honestly can't figure out if a coach can physically assist a runner when the ball is dead.  The first two cites would suggest that physical assistance is only illegal when the ball is live (during playing action).  The third cite is silent on the matter.

[Stk004]

3 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

My comments were pertaining to Fed:

2-21-1:  Offensive interference is an act (physical or verbal) by the team at bat:

c. a coach physically assists a runner during playing action.

3-2-2:  No coach shall physically assist a runner during playing action.

8-4-2: Any runner is out when he:

s. is physically assisted by a coach. (note the absence of "during playing action.")

I honestly can't figure out if a coach can physically assist a runner when the ball is dead.  The first two cites would suggest that physical assistance is only illegal when the ball is live (during playing action).  The third cite is silent on the matter.

8-4-2 seems to be the only one directly stating the runner is out when physically assisted, unless 2-21-1 or 3-2-2 have penalty provisions that are being omitted. The omission of "during playing action" in 8-4-2 would seem to imply that physical assistance by a coach is illegal at all times, right?

[ALStripes17]

8-4-2 seems to be the only one directly stating the runner is out when physically assisted, unless 2-21-1 or 3-2-2 have penalty provisions that are being omitted. The omission of "during playing action" in 8-4-2 would seem to imply that physical assistance by a coach is illegal at all times, right?

3.2.2 Situation A answers the dead-ball question... At least for any awards.

 

Edit to add: and 3.2.2 Situation B seems to give zero clarity to the rule change haha. Best assumption is that part b of that case play is that the assistance happens before the batted ball becomes dead.

 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[maven]

'During playing action' is probably not synonymous with 'live ball', and a runner completing a dead-ball award is an example of how they can be different.

That said, FED has refined the rule to emphasize that what is prohibited is assistance: they recently added the word 'physical' to specify the kind of assistance involved in the prohibition. If a runner is completing a dead ball award — or indeed any award — the offense gets no advantage from coach grabbing a runner to have him touch a missed base, as the defense has no opportunity to play on the runner. No advantage = no assistance?

Here's another clue: much of the verbiage around this rule emphasizes that the ball "remains live": clearly it can't remain live unless it's already live. So the kind of assistance that is prohibited would have to be live-ball assistance (if that's not redundant), and that's a point in favor of reading 'during playing action' to imply 'during live-ball action'.

[grayhawk]

24 minutes ago, maven said:

'During playing action' is probably not synonymous with 'live ball', and a runner completing a dead-ball award is an example of how they can be different.

That said, FED has refined the rule to emphasize that what is prohibited is assistance: they recently added the word 'physical' to specify the kind of assistance involved in the prohibition. If a runner is completing a dead ball award — or indeed any award — the offense gets no advantage from coach grabbing a runner to have him touch a missed base, as the defense has no opportunity to play on the runner. No advantage = no assistance?

Here's another clue: much of the verbiage around this rule emphasizes that the ball "remains live": clearly it can't remain live unless it's already live. So the kind of assistance that is prohibited would have to be live-ball assistance (if that's not redundant), and that's a point in favor of reading 'during playing action' to imply 'during live-ball action'.

Perhaps @lawump can weigh in?

[noumpere]

34 minutes ago, maven said:

'During playing action' is probably not synonymous with 'live ball', and a runner completing a dead-ball award is an example of how they can be different.

That said, FED has refined the rule to emphasize that what is prohibited is assistance: they recently added the word 'physical' to specify the kind of assistance involved in the prohibition. If a runner is completing a dead ball award — or indeed any award — the offense gets no advantage from coach grabbing a runner to have him touch a missed base, as the defense has no opportunity to play on the runner. No advantage = no assistance?

Here's another clue: much of the verbiage around this rule emphasizes that the ball "remains live": clearly it can't remain live unless it's already live. So the kind of assistance that is prohibited would have to be live-ball assistance (if that's not redundant), and that's a point in favor of reading 'during playing action' to imply 'during live-ball action'.

If I'm remembering the case play correctly, the BR homers, trips and the coach helps the BR to his feet.  There's no mention of a missed base.

Assuming that's correct, my take is:

The case play is NOT coach assistance because the runner could easily (and would be expected to) get to his own feet and continue without being played on.  If the runner trips during a live ball, then the coach helping him to his feet would be assistance (possible exception: R3 forced home on a walk).

If the runner misses a base and the coach physically stops the runner and directs him back to the base, that's assistance whether the ball is live or dead.

I think it's similar to the (in)famous McGwire (or however he spells it) record-breaking home run.  Sure, the 1BC made physical contact.  But, the contact was (judged to be) only "in celebration" and NOT to draw attention to / direct the runner back to a missed base.  So, it wasn't coach assistance.  I think it was the right judgment, and it was also good game management given the situation.  If you have a different judgment on a run-of-the-mill homerun, then that's fine, too -- it's why we get paid.