Runner assistance by a player

[Guest Skip]

Can a player from the same team assistant a runner to get up a re slide at home because the  player missed home plate?

[Jimurray]

48 minutes ago, Guest Skip said:

Can a player from the same team assistant a runner to get up a re slide at home because the  player missed home plate?

A retired or scored runner can not assist the runner in returning to touch HP. That would be considered a coach assist.

 

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Jimurray
clarified the assistance

[grayhawk]

15 minutes ago, Guest Skip said:

Can a player from the same team assistant a runner to get up a re slide at home because the  player missed home plate?

It depends on a couple of things:

(1) Is the "player" another active runner (i.e. one that has not yet scored)?
(2) What rule set?

NFHS only allows "viable" runners to assist another runner.  A viable runner is one that is still running the bases and has neither been put out or already scored.  Also, an on-deck batter is not allowed to assist a runner.

NCAA allows any player to assist a runner.

OBR is similar to NFHS where only runners who are running the bases can assist another runner.

So in your scenario, if a runner slid and missed the plate, and a preceding runner who already scored or an on-deck batter physically assisted the runner to go back and touch the plate, then the runner should be called out in NFHS and OBR, and the "that's nothing" signal and verbal should be given in NCAA.  However, if it's a following runner who has not yet touched the plate that grabbed the preceding runner, then it's nothing in all rule sets.

[The Man in Blue]

I need some clarification on the OP ...

I’m reading it as the runner slid into home and a teammate assisted him up from the slide ...

The runner is “assumed” to have touched home ... the help up was not assistance in his base running (which was assumed complete), just assistance in getting up.  I got nothing under that circumstance.

NOW ... the runner is rolling around on the ground and the teammate is pulling him up and pushing him towards the plate while saying “go back and touch home” ... then I possibly have something.

[grayhawk]

24 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I need some clarification on the OP ...

I’m reading it as the runner slid into home and a teammate assisted him up from the slide ...

The runner is “assumed” to have touched home ... the help up was not assistance in his base running (which was assumed complete), just assistance in getting up.  I got nothing under that circumstance.

NOW ... the runner is rolling around on the ground and the teammate is pulling him up and pushing him towards the plate while saying “go back and touch home” ... then I possibly have something.

The OP says the player assisted the runner BECAUSE he missed home plate.  Seems that it was obvious to everyone why he was helping him.

[Rich Ives]

1 hour ago, grayhawk said:

The OP says the player assisted the runner BECAUSE he missed home plate.  Seems that it was obvious to everyone why he was helping him.

He is assumed to have scored unless appealed. 

[grayhawk]

1 minute ago, Rich Ives said:

He is assumed to have scored unless appealed. 

Which is fine for appeals, but not fine for a physical assistance (interference) call.

[The Man in Blue]

Except he is no longer a runner ... and then assistance doesn’t matter.

[The Man in Blue]

2 hours ago, grayhawk said:

The OP says the player assisted the runner BECAUSE he missed home plate.  Seems that it was obvious to everyone why he was helping him.

The wording was weird (plus a typo), so not so obvious.  I don’t know of any runner that is going to slide, miss home, know that he missed it, get up, and then go back to touch the plate.  They generally are crawling, sprawling, and brawling to get back ... 

[grayhawk]

5 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Except he is no longer a runner ... and then assistance doesn’t matter.

Notice the absence of an appeal in the following play:

___________________

2013 NFHS Rules Interpretations

Situation 11: A runner misses the plate. The on-deck batter physically stops him and shoves him back to the plate, where he touches it.  Ruling: Physical assistance by a teammate is not allowed unless both players are viable runners. The assisted runner is out and his run does not count.

[Rich Ives]

38 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

Notice the absence of an appeal in the following play:

___________________

2013 NFHS Rules Interpretations

Situation 11: A runner misses the plate. The on-deck batter physically stops him and shoves him back to the plate, where he touches it.  Ruling: Physical assistance by a teammate is not allowed unless both players are viable runners. The assisted runner is out and his run does not count.

It says the on deck batter assisted, not another runner

[grayhawk]

It says the on deck batter assisted, not another runner

If the other runner has already scored, it’s exactly the same thing. Neither are viable runners and calling out the runner who missed the plate and was assisted doesn’t require an appeal.

[Jimurray]

8 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

2 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

 

If the other runner has already scored, it’s exactly the same thing. Neither are viable runners and calling out the runner who missed the plate and was assisted doesn’t require an appeal.

 

It says the on deck batter assisted, not another runner

And we learned back in 2010 that MLB considers it coach assist if a scored runner assists another scored runner: "8/28/10: When Ivan Rodriguez pulls Nyjer Morgan back towards home to touch the plate, the ump calls him out for the contact". That video isn't available anymore on MLB.com. But I had a question about missed base appeals and coach assist in this thread where we seem to treat HP differently than other bases:

 

[beerguy55]

23 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

It says the on deck batter assisted, not another runner

That's moot...

It also says " unless both players are viable runners"

The on deck batter, a scored runner, or a retired runner are not viable runners....they're all the same, none of them can assist another runner, and the appeal or lack of appeal is irrelevant.

A runner who has not yet touched home is a viable runner and can assist, and the appeal or lack of appeal is also irrelevant.

1 hour ago, The Man in Blue said:

Except he is no longer a runner ... and then assistance doesn’t matter.

A "scored" runner who has missed home plate is still a viable runner, otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to correct his mistake and touch home plate.

 

As an example...R3 misses home...R2 comes around, and knowing R3 missed home, steps over/around home plate without touching it...both are now "scored" runners who have passed/reached home plate and subject to appeal, but are also both viable runners...R2 can grab R3, push him onto the plate, and then touch home plate himself to correct both mistakes....at least, that's how I interpret it.

Conversely...if R2 touched home, R3 now can not correct his mistake...R2 is better off leaving R3 alone and hoping nobody appeals...if R2 grabs R3 he would be out immediately.

I think...

[agdz59]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

 

As an example...R3 misses home...R2 comes around, and knowing R3 missed home, steps over/around home plate without touching it...both are now "scored" runners who have passed/reached home plate and subject to appeal, but are also both viable runners...R2 can grab R3, push him onto the plate, and then touch home plate himself to correct both mistakes....at least, that's how I interpret it.

If R2, having missed the plate, helps R3 to touch before he does, I have R3 out for passing a runner.  Wheeeeee!!

[The Man in Blue]

4 hours ago, grayhawk said:

Notice the absence of an appeal in the following play:

___________________

2013 NFHS Rules Interpretations

Situation 11: A runner misses the plate. The on-deck batter physically stops him and shoves him back to the plate, where he touches it.  Ruling: Physical assistance by a teammate is not allowed unless both players are viable runners. The assisted runner is out and his run does not count.

Which is what I said ... There is a difference between “helping him up” and “pushing him back”.

[Jimurray]

37 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

Which is what I said ... There is a difference between “helping him up” and “pushing him back”.

Helping him up is ok. No one is disputing that. 

[Biscuit]

14 hours ago, agdz59 said:

If R2, having missed the plate, helps R3 to touch before he does, I have R3 out for passing a runner.  Wheeeeee!!

I don't think you can get passing here. They have both scored, so I think that option is gone.

[agdz59]

5 hours ago, Biscuit said:

I don't think you can get passing here. They have both scored, so I think that option is gone.

How about other bases - if two runners both miss, do they have to retouch in reverse order? 

[noumpere]

2 hours ago, agdz59 said:

How about other bases - if two runners both miss, do they have to retouch in reverse order? 

Depends on the specifics, and whether you are talking about any subsequent appeals or "outs for passing" and whether you are umpiring baseball, or discussing how may angels can fit on the head of a pin (what realistically can happen, or theoretical).

 

In a realistic scenario, if the lead runner retouches first, there will have been a runner passed.  No need any longer for the trail runner to retouch, s/he's already out.

[agdz59]

4 hours ago, noumpere said:

Depends on the specifics, and whether you are talking about any subsequent appeals or "outs for passing" and whether you are umpiring baseball, or discussing how may angels can fit on the head of a pin (what realistically can happen, or theoretical).

 

In a realistic scenario, if the lead runner retouches first, there will have been a runner passed.  No need any longer for the trail runner to retouch, s/he's already out.

Edit: let me rephrase...

 

that's what I would think as well.  The difference at home is because once home plate is passed they are assumed retired? 

I hadn't really thought about it before but you have to be aware of runners at home that never touch because they don't get to the plate and those that never touch and go past the plate.  The first are still viable runners, right?  And liable for abandonment.  While the second are assumed scored and now retired but liable to be out on appeal.

If this is the case and you have a lead runner who never reaches and a following runner that never touches but passes the plate, then the following runner is out immediately for passing the lead runner who abandoned his attempt at home.  Right?

 

[noumpere]

9 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Edit: let me rephrase...

 

that's what I would think as well.  The difference at home is because once home plate is passed they are assumed retired? 

I hadn't really thought about it before but you have to be aware of runners at home that never touch because they don't get to the plate and those that never touch and go past the plate.  The first are still viable runners, right?  And liable for abandonment.  While the second are assumed scored and now retired but liable to be out on appeal.

If this is the case and you have a lead runner who never reaches and a following runner that never touches but passes the plate, then the following runner is out immediately for passing the lead runner who abandoned his attempt at home.  Right?

 

Depends on what the lead runner does.  IF he nears the plate and stabs his foot at it, and then peels off toward the third-base dugout -- consider him to have touched and passed.

 

If he's still outside the dirt and peels off, consider it abandonment.  However, once he's abandoned, he's out, and the subsequent runner can't be out for passing.

99.9% of the time, it's the former.

[The Man in Blue]

12 hours ago, agdz59 said:

Edit: let me rephrase...

 

that's what I would think as well.  The difference at home is because once home plate is passed they are assumed retired? 

I hadn't really thought about it before but you have to be aware of runners at home that never touch because they don't get to the plate and those that never touch and go past the plate.  The first are still viable runners, right?  And liable for abandonment.  While the second are assumed scored and now retired but liable to be out on appeal.

If this is the case and you have a lead runner who never reaches and a following runner that never touches but passes the plate, then the following runner is out immediately for passing the lead runner who abandoned his attempt at home.  Right?

 

 

While that may be literally correct ... No.  Don’t go looking for justification for something to call.  A runner is assumed to have touched a base until there is an appeal.  There is a proper penalty/process for trailing runners if a runner is called out for missing a base on appeal.  Use that.  Logic: since there is a defined and specific penalty/process you should not be applying something else that could be applied in theory.