Coaches Interference

[rwthompson]

Okay for all of you that didn't see this and for those who did to. Take a look and give me what you think!

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100905&content_id=14314294&vkey=recap&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

[alexgreenlee]

Looked to me like 7.09 h wouldn't apply in that situation. Did not look like any assistance was given by the coach. Runner was already heading back to the base when the contact occurred. Looked to me like U3 was looking away when the contact occurred and assumed something he didn't see. Did not look as if HPU assisted in the call or indicated anything to U3 before or after the call was made.

[Richard_Siegel]

Looked to me like 7.09 h wouldn't apply in that situation. Did not look like any assistance was given by the coach. Runner was already heading back to the base when the contact occurred. Looked to me like U3 was looking away when the contact occurred and assumed something he didn't see. Did not look as if HPU assisted in the call or indicated anything to U3 before or after the call was made.

It was a good call. The assistance does not have to intentional, nor does it have to be significant. One could argue that the tap on the hand delivered to the runner helped the runner to realize he had to get back to 3B a little sooner. That's enough. How hard is it to keep away from a runner? Had Marquez disregarded the touching and a protest was filed it surely would have been upheld.

There are cases where the runner accidentally ran into a 3B who was trying to get out of the way. After the collision the runner was able to get up and go back to the base. He was called out. The collision was an unintended "assist" to help the runner get back tot the base.

[Solsaa]

In my opinion it was a terrible call.

[johnnyg08]

In my opinion it was a terrible call.

Why is that? Besides possibly being a Texas fan.

[Solsaa]

From the replay, I didn't see anything that warranted the call. Especially since U3's head was turned away from the play. He may have seen it out of the corner of his eye, but again I think it was a bad call.

[semper_fi_72]

Good call.

Now something else I noticed.
What is up with the Blue Band on the PUs right wrist?

[bigbird69]

another idiot who thinks contact (in this case, generated by the player) is assisting.

Hey, while we are at it, lets call them out everytime since the base coaches job is to assist. It may be with signals or verbal, but the rule does not rule that out, it just states "assisting"...again, learn the spirit of the rule. The coach was pointing to the base telling the player to stay and the player in trying to stop made contact... incidental but not assisting. This contact was less than he would have made doing a high 5 after a bomb...

The spirit of the rule is if he helped pushed or physically held back the player. Hell it was clear the player was already going back and his momentum carried him into the coaches hand.

Bad call.... and to end a game with 2 teams in the pennant race to boot....

[Matt13]

another idiot who thinks contact (in this case, generated by the player) is assisting.

Hey, while we are at it, lets call them out everytime since the base coaches job is to assist. It may be with signals or verbal, but the rule does not rule that out, it just states "assisting"...again, learn the spirit of the rule. The coach was pointing to the base telling the player to stay and the player in trying to stop made contact... incidental but not assisting. This contact was less than he would have made doing a high 5 after a bomb...

The spirit of the rule is if he helped pushed or physically held back the player. Hell it was clear the player was already going back and his momentum carried him into the coaches hand.

Bad call.... and to end a game with 2 teams in the pennant race to boot....

Have you ever read a rule book?

[jaxrolo]

+1 on a Good Call

How hard is it for a coach to get back out of the way.

[bobjenkins]

My understanding is that if the coach is "reaching" for the player in an initial attempt to hold him up (or tell him to go), and contact is then made, it's going to be judged to be "assisting" even if the coach was by then withdrawing the hand and / or the touch had no / minimal affect on the player's actions.

Of course, I've been wrong before.

[travlinmatt]

I agree with the call. There is clearly contact. The runner should be out.

Where I am at a loss is in how the 3rd base umpire saw this. From my best view on the play, (pausing the video at watching frame by frame) he was looking back toward the field when the contact occurred. Maybe he saw it peripherally, but I can't see how he makes the call if his best view was what he believed he caught out of the corner of his eye.

While I believe 3U got the call right, I just don't see him watching that portion of the play. Does anyone else see this as well?

Matt

[johnnyg08]

Let's look at the mechanics of the situation...I'm guessing that the touch of 3B is primary, coach assist, obs, int is secondary. He was in position to see both...one maybe in direct sight, the other maybe in peripheral. I don't know for sure, but he sure called it and sold it like he saw it. Especially in front of the Rangers dugout, it's not like he was hearing them scream for the call, then looked for it.

He had to have seen it. Certainly he didn't make it up.

[alexgreenlee]

HTBT to hear how U3 explained it, but while selling it, he motioned a pushing action with both hands - not a "point to the hand" to indicate slight contact. He was not looking at them when the contact was made, and I just hope he didn't make the call because he assumed something. I'm not arguing - I'm relatively new to this - just wondering if that little bit of unintentional contact is enough to justify an out.

[semper_fi_72]

Read OBR
7.09(h)
9.02(a)

A high 5 after a bomb does not equate as there will be no play made.

another idiot who thinks contact (in this case, generated by the player) is assisting.

Hey, while we are at it, lets call them out everytime since the base coaches job is to assist. It may be with signals or verbal, but the rule does not rule that out, it just states "assisting"...again, learn the spirit of the rule. The coach was pointing to the base telling the player to stay and the player in trying to stop made contact... incidental but not assisting. This contact was less than he would have made doing a high 5 after a bomb...

The spirit of the rule is if he helped pushed or physically held back the player. Hell it was clear the player was already going back and his momentum carried him into the coaches hand.

Bad call.... and to end a game with 2 teams in the pennant race to boot....

[p1timeblue]

Good call.

[yawetag]

This contact was less than he would have made doing a high 5 after a bomb...
Apples and oranges.

[bluesails]

It's difficult to tell by the replay and we didn't get to hear U3's explanation. I don't think the touch was the reason for the INT. call, you do see the runner putting the brakes on prior to the touch. What I do think, and I'm quessing , is that the 3rd base coach got himself in the runners path - making him slow up. In the video you can see the coach is sort of back pedeling away from 3rd base line back toward the coaches box. If that was the case it is assisting and I think the right call.

[thunderheads]

It's difficult to tell by the replay and we didn't get to hear U3's explanation. I don't think the touch was the reason for the INT. call, you do see the runner putting the brakes on prior to the touch. What I do think, and I'm quessing , is that the 3rd base coach got himself in the runners path - making him slow up. In the video you can see the coach is sort of back pedeling away from 3rd base line back toward the coaches box. If that was the case it is assisting and I think the right call.

That's not a bad assumption, but why did Marquez use a "push" sign? It's tough to see, but while looking again,...the runner coming home in front of Young blocks our view of U3, he's in the process of looking back at the ball ever so slightly ...so maybe he did see it quickly ....there's not a good enough angle on the play.

He sold the crap out of it though....

[Richard_Siegel]

It's difficult to tell by the replay and we didn't get to hear U3's explanation. I don't think the touch was the reason for the INT. call, you do see the runner putting the brakes on prior to the touch. What I do think, and I'm quessing , is that the 3rd base coach got himself in the runners path - making him slow up. In the video you can see the coach is sort of back pedeling away from 3rd base line back toward the coaches box. If that was the case it is assisting and I think the right call.

3B coaches get in runners' paths all the time to slow them down. They do this so the runner will see the coach. As long as there is no physical contact this is legal. The INT call was most certainly for the touching. The proper enforcement of the rule requires NO touching while coaching the runner to stop, advance or go back. Even if the touching had no significant effect on what the runner did, the touching is the violation.

If a runner fell down and got up all by himself and began to run back to 3B and while he was already running back, if the 3BC slapped him on the backside as he was running back as if to to say "get back there!" it would still be INT.

Touching that is congratulatory in nature like a high-five as a runner is rounding 3B after a HR has been hit, or the runner is heading to HP or arriving at 3B on an award, like a ground rule double, is nothing and it is allowed.

[Richard_Siegel]

The "push sign" is a standard mechanic that umpires will use to convey the coach's interference. It not unlike the safe off the bag mechanic or the out of the baseline mechanic. It is just a signal to communicate to everybody watching why he made the call.

[thunderheads]

The "push sign" is a standard mechanic that umpires will use to convey the coach's interference. It not unlike the safe off the bag mechanic or the out of the baseline mechanic. It is just a signal to communicate to everybody watching why he made the call.

I figured that might be so .....

[thunderheads]

3B coaches get in runners' paths all the time to slow them down. They do this so the runner will see the coach. As long as there is no physical contact this is legal. The INT call was most certainly for the touching. The proper enforcement of the rule requires NO touching while coaching the runner to stop, advance or go back. Even if the touching had no significant effect on what the runner did, the touching is the violation.



After looking at the rule again ...
7:09 (h) of the Official Rules, states that the runner is out if: "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 or first base."

Doesn't that ^^^^ insinuate that the judgement must also be that the touch assisted the runner? That's how I read it ....
p.s. not trying to be difficult, just making sure I really am grasping this...

[bluesails]

It's certainly true coaches often get in the runner's path so they are seen......usually down the line where they aren't actually impeding the runner's progress, that's what I was considering. Richard is correct with the book rule, and that's what we are charged with enforcing, it doesn't matter how insignifcant the 'touch' may be.
The point above is a good one......'in the umpires judgement' and I'll add to an earlier mention of 'the sprit of the game'.

[thunderheads]

It's certainly true coaches often get in the runner's path so they are seen......usually down the line where they aren't actually impeding the runner's progress, that's what I was considering. Richard is correct with the book rule, and that's what we are charged with enforcing, it doesn't matter how insignifcant the 'touch' may be.

see my post just before yours ....your thoughts?

[Richard_Siegel]

It's certainly true coaches often get in the runner's path so they are seen......usually down the line where they aren't actually impeding the runner's progress, that's what I was considering. Richard is correct with the book rule, and that's what we are charged with enforcing, it doesn't matter how insignifcant the 'touch' may be.

Thanks for backing up my position. There are other cases where we cannot allow ourselves to make a "value judgment" of how significant a touch was. If we got into that mind-set then we would be also be keeping batters whose uniform was slighty grazed by a pitch at home plate.

We all know that if the pitch, even slightly, touches the batter or his uniform, he goes to 1B. However, would you ever say, "Hey batter stay here. That pitch just barely clipped your sleeve. That's nothing." If he is touched by the pitch, he goes to 1B, no matter how insignificant the touch was.

It is also like the mistake some umpires make when they keep a batter at HP because they didn't make a "good enough" attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. The rules require the batter to simply make an attempt to avoid the pitch, the attempt doesn't have to be successful.

[Richard_Siegel]

After looking at the rule again ...
7:09 (h) of the Official Rules, states that the runner is out if: "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 or first base."

Doesn't that ^^^^ insinuate that the judgement must also be that the touch assisted the runner? That's how I read it ....
p.s. not trying to be difficult, just making sure I really am grasping this...

You are correct. The judgement must be that the touch assisted the runner. That is why we ignore high-fives when the batter trots passe 3B on a HR, or an award. However, umpires draw that "judgment" line when the touch is done when there is very unrelaxed action an the runner is in immediate jeopardy of being played on if he doesn't get back to, or advance from the base to the next base.

[bluesails]

Geez, I'm agreeing with everyone.......After additional consideration and Richard's example of a 'slightly' hit batsmen, etc. Judgement may not be the correct measure here, it either did or didn't occur, that's what to rule on.

[thunderheads]

You are correct. The judgement must be that the touch assisted the runner. That is why we ignore high-fives when the batter trots passe 3B on a HR, or an award. However, umpires draw that "judgment" line when the touch is done when there is very unrelaxed action an the runner is in immediate jeopardy of being played on if he doesn't get back to, or advance from the base to the next base.

Thanks Richard, I'm glad you took my inquiry in the right light. Ok, so, therefore ..... based on the above, ...it's NOT JUST the touch, and what Marquez saw, in his judgement, assisted Young getting back to 3rd ....sorry, that's rhetorical isn't it? ;)

[finnerty]

Here's how it reads to me:

7:09 (h) ... the runner is out if: 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 or first base.

He brushed the runner's fingertips. His words directed the runner back to third, his actions didn't assist him. I would say, curious judgment on the part of the umpire. In the words of the great Chick Hearn: TICKY-TACK!

[thunderheads]

Here's how it reads to me:

7:09 (h) ... the runner is out if: 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 or first base.



that's what made me come back to this .... the 'judgement' must be made based on an 'assist' ......

did he touch him, yes ....
did he 'assist' him ....... hhmmmmm ......

[Richard_Siegel]

Phyiscal assistence can me very minor. Why do some of you feel the coach had to apply the touch with signifcant force to be a violation? The point or reason for the rule is that a touch, even a minor one, can help communicate information to a runner when the voice of the coach might not be heard or the runner is not looking at the coach to get visual signals.

For instance, suppose B5 hits a high fly ball to LF and R3 gets on the base ready to advance to HP as soon as F7 touches the ball (tag up). R3 is poised on the bag like a sprinter ready to bolt, looking forward to HP. To assist his runner, the 3BC stands next to R3 looking at F7. The instant F7 touches the fly ball the 3BC lighty taps R3 on the arm to communicate to him that he can go. That's a very insignificant touch that does nothing to assist R3 is getting to HP any faster. Yet is clear-cut coach's interference.

The 3BC in the OP could have backed off and kept his hands down. He has a responsiblity to keep away from the runner.

[darrens]

Thanks for backing up my position. There are other cases where we cannot allow ourselves to make a "value judgment" of how significant a touch was. If we got into that mind-set then we would be also be keeping batters whose uniform was slighty grazed by a pitch at home plate.

We all know that if the pitch, even slightly, touches the batter or his uniform, he goes to 1B. However, would you ever say, "Hey batter stay here. That pitch just barely clipped your sleeve. That's nothing." If he is touched by the pitch, he goes to 1B, no matter how insignificant the touch was.

It is also like the mistake some umpires make when they keep a batter at HP because they didn't make a "good enough" attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. The rules require the batter to simply make an attempt to avoid the pitch, the attempt doesn't have to be successful.

I think this is apples and oranges. A HBP is a HBP is a HBP. The rules are pretty explicit that if the batter gets hit, he gets 1st. No judgment necessary (other than if he got hit or not). The fact that some room is left to judge if he attempted to avoid the pitch is also clearly spelled out in 6.08(b). Just beacuse some misread the rule to apply an arbitrary "good enough" standard to avoidance doesn't make it relative to the point at hand.

I don't think the call was so wrong or right that I would call it a good call or bad call, regardless of which side I was on. Although, as a matter for the record, I am down on the side of it being incorrect, since I do not believe that, if there was contact, it in any way assisted the runner.

I think the larger point is that it doesn't appear he was actually looking at it through the whole process. He clearly sees R2 and the coach get close. Then, his attention turns to getting into proper position to make the call at 3rd. Finally, the play is made and he calls the out. I think he anticipated the contact, thought it over as he was moving to position, and then made the call after the play was over.

Finally, if he really saw the contact, shouldn't he have made that call immediately, and not waited for the play to be over?

[Solsaa]

3B coaches get in runners' paths all the time to slow them down. They do this so the runner will see the coach. As long as there is no physical contact this is legal. The INT call was most certainly for the touching. The proper enforcement of the rule requires NO touching while coaching the runner to stop, advance or go back. Even if the touching had no significant effect on what the runner did, the touching is the violation.

Touching is not illegal unless the umpire judges the touch assisted the runner. I have never heard, or been taught, of this being the "proper enforcement".

[Richard_Siegel]

To allow any actual phyiscal contact between a base coach and a runner during a play where the runner could be potentially played on by the defense is very slippery slope engage. You are now opening up a can of worms that could effect all umpires. At what point do you finally say the touching was sigficiant enough to penalize? What Marquez sees a "assitence" might not appear that way to Davis. Umpires want the enforcement of rules to be as consistent as possible from one guy to the next. So I believe the proper and expected enforcement is to nail the coach who lets the runner touch him. I beleive that professional umpires will always judge the touch assisted the runner.

I believe that professional umpires do not want to open a "window of tollerance" for coach's interference and start to say (when there is a possible play on the runner) "that was a touch but it didn't really assist the runner so we'll let it go." Since it so easy for a 3B coach to keep himself far enough away from the baseline as necessary to not get in a runner's way, I believe that professional umpires assume that a 3B coach, whose job is 100% to help the runner passing 3B to stay safe, realizes that the base coqch must never allow himself to touch or be touched by a runner during an unrelaxed playing action. Because the umpire will aways give the benefit of the doubt to the defense and call the runner out.

I have never heard of umpires allowing a touch by a 3BC of a runner actively trying to get back to a base to beat a tag and judging the touch to be legal.

[mr umpire]

Here's how it reads to me:

7:09 (h) ... the runner is out if: 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 or first base.

He brushed the runner's fingertips. His words directed the runner back to third, his actions didn't assist him. I would say, curious judgment on the part of the umpire. In the words of the great Chick Hearn: TICKY-TACK!
I have to say I stand corrected on this call. I watched it again. I agree the call is incorrect. The touch has to assist the runner. If the touch doesn't assist, it doesn't matter how much/little contact there is.

The touch did not assist R2. He was already returning to 3B before the contact was made. The rule clearly states that "touching" has to physically assist the runner. I don't think it did here.

I agree that this is similar to HBP but for different circumstances. The rule doesn't mention how much contact has to be made with the ball but that there has to be an attempt to avoid. Same here. The rule doesn't mention how much contact has to be made but that the contact must physically assist the runner.

That didn't happen here. I think U3 misjudged it. He may have looked away too soon and assumed there was more contact. Or, he just misjudged it.

Either way, I now think he missed the call and there was no coach's INT.

[lustersilk]

another idiot who thinks contact (in this case, generated by the player) is assisting.

Your calling Alfonso Marquez and idiot - wow. I hope your games is a good as you think it is :confused:

[Solsaa]

To allow any actual phyiscal contact between a base coach and a runner during a play where the runner could be potentially played on by the defense is very slippery slope engage. You are now opening up a can of worms that could effect all umpires. At what point do you finally say the touching was sigficiant enough to penalize? What Marquez sees a "assitence" might not appear that way to Davis. Umpires want the enforcement of rules to be as consistent as possible from one guy to the next. So I believe the proper and expected enforcement is to nail the coach who lets the runner touch him. I beleive that professional umpires will always judge the touch assisted the runner.

I believe that professional umpires do not want to open a "window of tollerance" for coach's interference and start to say (when there is a possible play on the runner) "that was a touch but it didn't really assist the runner so we'll let it go." Since it so easy for a 3B coach to keep himself far enough away from the baseline as necessary to not get in a runner's way, I believe that professional umpires assume that a 3B coach, whose job is 100% to help the runner passing 3B to stay safe, realizes that the base coqch must never allow himself to touch or be touched by a runner during an unrelaxed playing action. Because the umpire will aways give the benefit of the doubt to the defense and call the runner out.

I have never heard of umpires allowing a touch by a 3BC of a runner actively trying to get back to a base to beat a tag and judging the touch to be legal.

God forbid that umpires would have to actually make a judgement call in such a situation. This is not FED rules wherer they try to dumb it down for umpires. It is up to the judgement of the umpire, period. There is no "unwritten code" on enforcement. Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean that something is enforced a certain way. I think you are making this too difficult. There are situations where touching occurs that in no way equates to "assisting" during a live ball.

Like I said earlier, from the replay and in my opinion, I think the call was wrong. I don't know what perspective U3 had on the play.

[Richard_Siegel]

God forbid that umpires would have to actually make a judgement call in such a situation. This is not FED rules wherer they try to dumb it down for umpires. It is up to the judgement of the umpire, period. There is no "unwritten code" on enforcement. Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean that something is enforced a certain way. I think you are making this too difficult. There are situations where touching occurs that in no way equates to "assisting" during a live ball.

Like I said earlier, from the replay and in my opinion, I think the call was wrong. I don't know what perspective U3 had on the play.

Touching is not illegal unless the umpire judges the touch assisted the runner. I have never heard, or been taught, of this being the "proper enforcement".

If you assert that my implication that a rule should be enforced in a way I believe is correct because "I have never heard" of it being done another way, how come you can say that as you did in the above quote, but not me? How come its OK for you but not for me? Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean that something is enforced a certain way.

I can say pretty much the same thing. I have never heard, or been taught, of the proper enforcement being that an umpire should allow some touching but not others when a play is being made on the runner.

You can bet the farm that there is an "unwritten code" on enforcement. That's half of what one learns in the minors!

[Solsaa]

If you assert that my implication that a rule should be enforced in a way I believe is correct because "I have never heard" of it being done another way, how come you can say that as you did in the above quote, but not me? How come its OK for you but not for me? Just because you have never heard of it doesn't mean that something is enforced a certain way.

I can say pretty much the same thing. I have never heard, or been taught, of the proper enforcement being that an umpire should allow some touching but not others when a play is being made on the runner.

You can bet the farm that there is an "unwritten code" on enforcement. That's half of what one learns in the minors!

You're right concerning the whole not hearing about it issue, however, coaches assist violations are taught that: (a) an "assist" must occur and (b) that it is up to the umpire's judgement. I don't have a farm to bet, but there is no super secret enforcement guideline concerning this rule. You learn a lot in the minors, especially how the rules work in pro ball, what the spirit of the rule is versus the outdated literal rule book definition, using common sense and a sense of fair play in applying such rules, and game management among a huge litany of other things. If you contend that any touch of a runner, by a coach, during live action constitutes an automatic out, you might find yourself holding the brown end of the stick. Now if you judge that any touch of a runner by a coach is an assist, now you are within the guidelines in applying the rule and are exempt from a protest, however wrong you may be in it's application concerning the spirit of the rule.

In the end, we will just have to disagree on this and keep this from turning into a 6 page thread.

[wjr953]

I have looked at this clip over and over and over again. I honestly do not see any contact and definitely do not see any "assist" by the 3BC to help R2 back to 3B. The bigger problem for me is that U3 never looks at what actually happened, not even once. He made an assumption of contact/assist based on the positions of R2 and 3BC, and he went ahead and banged R2 out for the int on 3BC. To be clear here, I'm not accusing Marquez of being a liar or an idiot, I'm just saying that he assumed the "assist" by 3BC and never actually saw it happen. It's a Bad Call. At the risk of going against the tide of popular opinion on this one and also at the risk of extending this thread any further, I think that Marquez kicked the call. For the record, I'm neither a Twins or Rangers fan.