Dead Ball Assist

[MT73]

Runner hits home run.

‘While he is trotting around 3rd he misses the base.

‘Coach taps him and tells him to touch the base.

‘Even though it’s a dead ball is he out?

[SH0102]

7 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Runner hits home run.

‘While he is trotting around 3rd he misses the base.

‘Coach taps him and tells him to touch the base.

‘Even though it’s a dead ball is he out?

Might be a “had to be there” thing, because oftentimes a description of how much contact occurs depends on which team you’re rooting for.

But the rule is “physically assist” a runner in advancing or returning.

Contact by itself is not in of itself interference. Did his tap simply get his attention or did it help stop his momentum? Was it used to say “hey Johnny” or was it a panicked “get back get back” and he turned his shoulder in getting his attention?

Any chance you have a video of it?

[MT73]

Actually it is to settle an argument.

‘Let’s say the coach grabbed the runner and pulled him back to the base.

‘Can he be called out for being assisted when the ball is dead?

[SH0102]

35 minutes ago, MT73 said:

Actually it is to settle an argument.

‘Let’s say the coach grabbed the runner and pulled him back to the base.

‘Can he be called out for being assisted when the ball is dead?

Yes, the rule says a runner is out when a coach “by touching or holding, physically assists the runner in returning to or leaving a base”.  

there is no caveat that says “during a live ball only...”

Essentially, the coach, by grabbing the runner and pushing him back, deprived the defense of an appeal opportunity they might have had if he had not grabbed him

[Senor Azul]

From the 2016 BRD (section 310, p. 207):  Interference By:  Coach: Assists Runner During: Dead Ball

OBR:  No provision. Treat as in NCAA.

NCAA:  Official Interpretation:  Paronto:  There is no coach’s interference during a dead ball unless the coach’s actions provide an advantage for the offensive team. (e-mail to Childress, 12/21/11)

FED:  Contact, even physical assistance, by a coach with a home run hitter who is advancing on a four-base award is legal. (See case play 3.2.2A)

Play:  R1 tries for third on B1’s single, but F9’s throw goes dead. R1 rounds the bag (he will be awarded home) but does not touch it. The coach grabs R1 by the arm and yells:  “Go back and touch third.” Ruling:  At all levels, there is no penalty.

[SH0102]

22 minutes ago, Senor Azul said:

From the 2016 BRD (section 310, p. 207):  Interference By:  Coach: Assists Runner During: Dead Ball

OBR:  No provision. Treat as in NCAA.

NCAA:  Official Interpretation:  Paronto:  There is no coach’s interference during a dead ball unless the coach’s actions provide an advantage for the offensive team. (e-mail to Childress, 12/21/11)

FED:  Contact, even physical assistance, by a coach with a home run hitter who is advancing on a four-base award is legal. (See case play 3.2.2A)

Play:  R1 tries for third on B1’s single, but F9’s throw goes dead. R1 rounds the bag (he will be awarded home) but does not touch it. The coach grabs R1 by the arm and yells:  “Go back and touch third.” Ruling:  At all levels, there is no penalty.

I stand corrected...good catch Azul, guess I need to go back and review HS interps

usually ncaa is more lax than NFHS, this one appears to be reversed.

[Senor Azul]

2019 NFHS Case Book Play 3.2.2 Situation A:  B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while rounding third, trips over the base. The third-base coach helps B1 to his feet. RULING:  The ball is dead and, since B1 is awarded four bases for the home run, he is allowed to score with this type of assistance by the third-base coach.

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, Senor Azul said:

Contact, even physical assistance, by a coach with a home run hitter who is advancing on a four-base award is legal. (See case play 3.2.2A)

Everyone needs to read this. 

And again. And read it again. And read it again. And again until it sinks in... 

Thus, a high-five on a home run is not coach assistance, and even if it was, is legal! 

So fellow umpires – stop calling Out the BRs who just popped a HR and high-five their 3BC while they round 3B!!!

STOP DOING IT!!!

[SeeingEyeDog]

Coaches need to read this one, too...along with the rest of their rulebook.

~Dawg

[SH0102]

4 minutes ago, MadMax said:

Everyone needs to read this. 

And again. And read it again. And read it again. And again until it sinks in... 

Thus, a high-five on a home run is not coach assistance, and even if it was, is legal! 

So fellow umpires – stop calling Out the BRs who just popped a HR and high-five their 3BC while they round 3B!!!

STOP DOING IT!!!

Max, I have never seen or heard of an umpire calling a batter out for a high-five.

Is that actually happening?  I’d think an assignor would be having a less than pleasant chat with said umpire

[MadMax]

1 hour ago, SH0102 said:

Is that actually happening?

The “Ask the Umpire” section here at U-E alone is strewn with these questions, often from coaches and parents who have watched this firsthand, in stunned disbelief.  It’s either that an/the umpire got influenced into that call (typically by the coach whose team just gave up the HR), or an/the umpire made it (up) on their own. Just ask @Thunderheads... he’s seen the archives. 

The late Coach Lou Presutti, founder of Cooperstown Dreams Park, would implore us at each Umpire Orientation Meeting, on the starting Saturday of each new week, to not make calls like this up. This one specifically – a high-five, slap on the back, or even a hug – is not grounds for calling the BR Out. If Coach Lou is bringing it up, it’s gotta be something that some “Blues” are doing somewhere, and bringing with them to the (CDP’s) ballpark. 

I’m not expecting you to be the best, or the most perfect umpire. I’m not. But at the very least, don’t make s#!t up!!! Calls like this cause what I term “viral umpiring” outbreaks to happen – a call like this is made, not corrected, and now at least 4 (if not more) baseball participants* (of authority) are affected and carry it on to the next game they participate in. 

[MT73]

10 hours ago, SH0102 said:

I stand corrected...good catch Azul, guess I need to go back and review HS interps

usually ncaa is more lax than NFHS, this one appears to be reversed.

But wouldn’t grappling the kid back to a missed base be seen as giving an advantage to the offense?

[SH0102]

2 hours ago, MT73 said:

But wouldn’t grappling the kid back to a missed base be seen as giving an advantage to the offense?

That’s what I thought too (obviously) but Azuls quoted interp said not on a home run.  Live ball, in park HR, or scoring from 2nd, yes, home run no

[Replacematt]

The logic is that there's no advantage because the runner cannot be put out at that time, thus there's no harm. There are legitimate arguments against that, but in the end, the rules mean what the ones who publish them decide them to mean. 

[Rich Ives]

9 hours ago, MT73 said:

But wouldn’t grappling the kid back to a missed base be seen as giving an advantage to the offense?

The ball is dead and the defense cannot put the runner out. How would this thus be an advantage for the offense?

 

[Tborze]

Is this a trick question?  Runners can't hit home runs

[The Man in Blue]

I will start with: no, I am not calling the kid out.

That said, the case posted by Senior Azul (thank you!) is not the same as what is being presented in the theoretical case.  In the cited case, the runner is merely helped back up after tripping on the bag.  There is no deprivation of any defensive actions.  In the theoretical case, the award is four bases, however the base runner still has a legal obligation in his baserunning duties.  The coach's actions deprived the defense of a legal and valid appeal.  If the coach's actions were deemed illegal, the kid should be out.

Since I have been gone for a while, I'll break out my old drum to beat: Umpires should not have to rely on obscure case plays and e-mails to make a call.  The rule book should be sufficient while case plays should help us learn how to extrapolate and apply rules, not create new ones.  If Fed wants to allow assistance during dead balls, I am fine with that but they need to fix it in the rule book.  As was pointed out earlier, there is no distinction between live-ball and dead-ball physical assistance.

I'm not calling the kid out, but the defensive coach has a point I am willing to hear.

[Velho]

48 minutes ago, Rich Ives said:

The ball is dead and the defense cannot put the runner out. How would this thus be an advantage for the offense?

 

Because the BR may not be hearing or seeing the screaming gesticulating 3rd base coach (I certainly have had that issue as a coach getting a runner to "GO! GO! GO!" on a passed ball).

I personally believe grabbing them to wake them up is an advantage to avoid losing on appeal. Same as grabbing them when they run through an arms up & yelling stop sign. Outs on high fives is silly. Touching them to get their attention, that's a different matter. Keep it a bright line and remove the ambiguity.

[MadMax]

2 hours ago, Tborze said:

Runners can't hit home runs

R2, # Outs don’t matter, Batter hits Ground Rule Double. R2 takes an aggressive rounding of 3B, loses his footing and falls at 3BC’s feet. 

Ball is dead on the Ground Rule Double, is it not? 

3BC and R2 have a good laugh about it, and 3BC helps R2 to his feet so as to head on home... 

Out on “Coach Assist”? 

[Rich Ives]

36 minutes ago, Velho said:

Because the BR may not be hearing or seeing the screaming gesticulating 3rd base coach  Same as grabbing them when they run through an arms up & yelling stop sign. 

It's a dead ball. There is no advantage. Runner is not in a big hurry and will take his time. Coach can jump into his path to be seen. Anyplace. Anytime. No advantage.

[MadMax]

3 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

As was pointed out earlier, there is no distinction between live-ball and dead-ball physical assistance.

Need there be a codified distinction? 

Look at this from a parallel argument – say we have Batter hit a double, but in the process of advancing to 2B, doesn’t touch 1B. He’s standing on 2B, asks for Time so as to remove his elbow and shin guards. Time is granted (ball is Dead), and he trots back over to hand his guards off to the 1BC. He steps upon 1B, hands the guards off, then heads back to 2B. F1 gets upon the mound, engages the rubber, (next) batter in the box, and PU calls “Play!”. F1 steps off, throws to F3 at 1B, who steps on 1B, and appeals to the umpire(s)... 

Whatcha ruling there, Umpire? 

I don’t see this needing to be detailed in the Rule Book, either. 

[Tborze]

4 hours ago, MadMax said:

R2, # Outs don’t matter, Batter hits Ground Rule Double. R2 takes an aggressive rounding of 3B, loses his footing and falls at 3BC’s feet. 

Ball is dead on the Ground Rule Double, is it not? 

3BC and R2 have a good laugh about it, and 3BC helps R2 to his feet so as to head on home... 

Out on “Coach Assist”? 

Was this meant for me?

[Senor Azul]

Mr. MT73, you asked this same question in April 2019 in the same forum. I gave you the very same answer which you thanked me for. Then our resident experts started to claim that the BRD was wrong so I was forced to post more in defense of that interpretation—here is one of those posts talking about an analysis by Gil Imber.

Let me direct you to an article written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports. It is titled Case Play 2017-5--Dead Ball Missed Base Appeal and it is dated May 4, 2017. The play in question actually took place in an NCAA softball game but the last half of the analysis is about what if it happened in a Major League game. Here are a couple of excerpts from his analysis of the OBR ruling.

On an out-of-the-park (dead ball) home run, the runner may be called out for: failing to touch a base (appeal play), passing a runner (see Rule 7.01(g)(3) Approved Ruling), abandonment, but not interference.

But the ball is dead! The Definition of Terms states, "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." There is no play or potential play to be made during a dead ball period.

Furthermore, Rule 5.06(c)(2) states that, while the ball is dead, no player may be put out, no bases run, and no runs scored except as the result of acts that occurred while the ball was live (and the rule specifically lists "interference" as one of those acts which might have "occurred while the ball was alive"). Thus, while the ball is dead, the batter-runner cannot be put out due to the coach assist interference. Coach assistance interference is a live ball infraction.

So, I hope you, Mr. MT73, will read this analysis and feel more confidence in the ruling from the BRD. The allegation that Carl Childress is wrong about this is simply that—an allegation—an unsubstantiated claim.

[The Man in Blue]

8 hours ago, MadMax said:

R2, # Outs don’t matter, Batter hits Ground Rule Double. R2 takes an aggressive rounding of 3B, loses his footing and falls at 3BC’s feet. 

Ball is dead on the Ground Rule Double, is it not? 

3BC and R2 have a good laugh about it, and 3BC helps R2 to his feet so as to head on home... 

Out on “Coach Assist”? 

 

As is shown in the case play, no.  My point (and maybe I am interjecting myself a bit in this response) is that the case play (and now your play) are indeed different than the theoretical that began this conversation.

The runner getting back on his feet is going to occur regardless of the coach's actions ... ergo not an undue advantage.  A runner missing a base and not returning on his own indicates the coach's physical interdiction quite possibly (and probably did) provide an undue advantage that would not have occurred without the coach's physical contact.

Again a brush, a tap to get his attention ... I'm erring on the side of caution and not calling it.  A coach grabbing a runner and pushing him back ... there is a case to be made.  Not saying I like it, just that there is support for that position. 

 

[The Man in Blue]

5 hours ago, MadMax said:

Need there be a codified distinction? 

Look at this from a parallel argument – say we have Batter hit a double, but in the process of advancing to 2B, doesn’t touch 1B. He’s standing on 2B, asks for Time so as to remove his elbow and shin guards. Time is granted (ball is Dead), and he trots back over to hand his guards off to the 1BC. He steps upon 1B, hands the guards off, then heads back to 2B. F1 gets upon the mound, engages the rubber, (next) batter in the box, and PU calls “Play!”. F1 steps off, throws to F3 at 1B, who steps on 1B, and appeals to the umpire(s)... 

Whatcha ruling there, Umpire? 

I don’t see this needing to be detailed in the Rule Book, either. 

 

Only if there is a distinction.  Otherwise, no, there is no need for a codified distinction.  Without a codified distinction, they are the same.

Again, this new theoretical you pose is worlds apart from the question.  In the question, the baserunner has a legal obligation to touch the bases and fails to do so absent the coach's physical interdiction.  Your "parallel" case is not even remotely parallel.  That's some Mickey Mouse "it's the Sunday go-home-round so the coach is going to act like an idiot" stuff there.  😁

I agree it does not need to be detailed because it should not be any different than a coach assisting during a live ball.  The real line is where do we deem the coach assisted.

[The Man in Blue]

3 hours ago, Senor Azul said:

Mr. MT73, you asked this same question in April 2019 in the same forum. I gave you the very same answer which you thanked me for. Then our resident experts started to claim that the BRD was wrong so I was forced to post more in defense of that interpretation—here is one of those posts talking about an analysis by Gil Imber.

Let me direct you to an article written by Gil Imber of Close Call Sports. It is titled Case Play 2017-5--Dead Ball Missed Base Appeal and it is dated May 4, 2017. The play in question actually took place in an NCAA softball game but the last half of the analysis is about what if it happened in a Major League game. Here are a couple of excerpts from his analysis of the OBR ruling.

On an out-of-the-park (dead ball) home run, the runner may be called out for: failing to touch a base (appeal play), passing a runner (see Rule 7.01(g)(3) Approved Ruling), abandonment, but not interference.

But the ball is dead! The Definition of Terms states, "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play." There is no play or potential play to be made during a dead ball period.

Furthermore, Rule 5.06(c)(2) states that, while the ball is dead, no player may be put out, no bases run, and no runs scored except as the result of acts that occurred while the ball was live (and the rule specifically lists "interference" as one of those acts which might have "occurred while the ball was alive"). Thus, while the ball is dead, the batter-runner cannot be put out due to the coach assist interference. Coach assistance interference is a live ball infraction.

So, I hope you, Mr. MT73, will read this analysis and feel more confidence in the ruling from the BRD. The allegation that Carl Childress is wrong about this is simply that—an allegation—an unsubstantiated claim.

 

As always, thank you for the detail @Senor Azul!

I just deleted a long-winded rant about that section of the rulebook being in the wrong place ... because I am trying to find where in OBR the runner should be called out for the coach physically assisting him.  I am not seeing it.  I looked in 5.03 (Base Coaches), 5.06 (Running the Bases), 5.09 (Making an Out), 6.01(d) (Unintentional Interference), 6.01(f) (Coach and Umpire Interference), and 6.04 (Unsportsmanlike Conduct).

Surely I am overlooking it ... right?