I’ve had to educate a coach that the box is not a safe haven and he has to vacate if the play goes toward him. He looked at me like I had three heads. SMH…
Case: R3, 1 out. BR hits a deep fly ball. R3 starts to break towards home. Coach grabs R3 to stop him from going home and make him tag up. Ball clears fence for homerun. My understanding is R3 is out, BR scores. Now, assume 2 outs. R3 returns to 3rd to tag up, coach grabs him and pushes him towards home. Ball clears the fence A) after the assistance or B) before the assistance.
Rewatch @ the 7:20 mark. You'll find your confirmed answer. But no, since it is a homerun, the ball is dead, so Coaches interference is not ruled and R3 isn't out..
@@jameshickam1787 I think the answer here is far more nuanced than "only while the ball is live". have you read NFHS Casebook Play 3.2.2 Situation B? it states R3 is out for being assisted by the coach on a home run, however it is not specific as to exactly how or when the assistance happened. it seems to contradict Caseplay 3.2.2 Situation A which is word-for-word the same as caseplay #1 in the video here. the wording of the Situation A caseplay in the book makes clear (to me anyway) that the coach's assistance is ignored on this play because the ball is dead AND the assistance doesn't change anything - the runner had already touched 3B and tripped, and the coached helped him get up _beyond_ 3B. I do not think it means ALL possible assistance is allowed when the ball is dead.
Let me ask for a ruling on a slightly modified version of your Caseplay #1: B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while approaching third leaps to celebrate with his head coach in the coaching box; in so doing he misses touching third base. The third-base coach physically stops the runner and pushes B1 back to third base and he completes his award by touching third and then home. A) This is illegal, B1 shall be declared out and his run does not score B) This is legal because the ball is dead
By a strict interpretation of the rule the coach has assisted his runner. A verbal warning to stop and turn around would be better and would not be inference. The pushing back would be interference. How are we defining assistance? Help would be one synonym.
@Ray Ray I'm asking in light of Patrick's assertion that this rule is only in force when the ball is live, and can't apply on a homerun because the ball is dead. I do not think that is correct. I asked a longer version of this question on the original version of this video, but it was replaced due to a mistake in an on-screen graphic.
I'm watching this video more for Little League and Babe Ruth level games. I see many coches wanting to stand 2-3 feet away from the third base runner and nowhere near the box. Also, following them down the line and back to the bag at times. All without touching the runner on most instances but being so close I feel like I could miss that call or with being so close that I now have to watch it more and maybe taking me away from focusing somewhere else. I have asked coaches to stay in the box without the opposing teams complain. These are 1-2 man games. What would you do?
Question: had this happen in a scrimmage game last weekend. Catcher calls time to confer with his infielders. Can the 3rd base coach piggyback off of this Defensive time out and not be charged with a conference?
No. The base coach and the offense would be charged a conference. The rule is 3.4.5 and says it only applies to “Charged” conferences. The catcher and infielders calling time to meet at the mound is not a charged conference.
im only putting this comment here since it is the newest video you have. In your graphics you use r1, r2, r3 in the wrong order... i only say this due to the use of the nfhs rule books using r1 on third and r2 on second and r3 on first... this is a bases loaded not out situation... nfhs rule book would show r1 on second r4 on first to show 2 outs in a situation... hope this makes sense. p.s. love your videos keep up the good work you do. i really appreciate the work you do here.
I had a tie score in the bottom 7 when a third base coach touched his base runner which stopped him from taking a step toward home, and then they hugged and celebrated. I almost called interference, but I wasn’t 100 percent sure the runner was assisted. How strictly should this rule be interpreted?
This is one of those rules where you'll never get promoted or higher ranked for making it. But you'll lose ranking by not making it when necessary. So, only get it when it has to be done. Passing on a borderline is a great decision. Sounds like there was no play going to happen either.
@@UmpireClassroom yes sir. We had a dead ball time out right after the coach touched his runner- I walked out to my field umpire who happens to be my assignor, and asked him what he thought. I told him no one knows what we are talking about and if I walk away back to home plate we are going to roll and play ball. If I call interference the coach who was already animated was most likely going to be ejected from the game. The opposing pitcher was posturing when he struck batters out, and when he came to bat he was hit by a pitch. I almost issued warnings. The runner on third scored the winning run. 3-2 ballgame. I’m still questioning my choice. There was no real life advantage when the head coach/ third base coach touched his baserunner. He actually did prevent him from taking a step toward home, and then he hugged his player and they celebrated. It was an emotional and tense game. Do you think my conservative approach was the wise choice? By strict rules interpretation he did assist his runner, but the strict enforcement would not have made the game a better game.
@@rayray4192 - Make up your mind.. "Did the coach assist the runner during a live ball?" Your first statement was - you weren't 100 %, then later you indicated "He actually did prevent him from taking a step toward home..." I'd suggest - call by rule, what you see... We have tools in place to address a coach's / player's actions for not following those rules. Regarding promotions and higher ranking - personally, umpire your game to the standards provided. Let those who assign you judge you accordingly. (my 2 cents)..
@@jameshickam1787 I did make up my mind. My first inclination was to call interference on the coach. Technically, there was interference. In reality the coach touching his runner had no affect on the scenario. The call of interference would have been a very strict interpretation of the rule. Patrick Iis correct that it was a good choice to refrain from a strict interpretation and ruling. I had two seconds to make a decision. A very wise umpire asked me a question after a game in which I enforced a technical rule- “ Did your action make the game a better game? In a 2-2 game in the bottom of the 7th inning a strict call of coach interference would not have made the game a better game. Umpires umpire in the real world- not on You Tube. A concept that you have no understanding about.
![Lethal Company Music Video 🎵 "Follow The Orders" [VERSION A]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QeooZB4Z7RA/mqdefault.jpg)
The spring of 2025 will be my first year umpiring high school baseball and all of your videos have been extremely helpful
I’ve had to educate a coach that the box is not a safe haven and he has to vacate if the play goes toward him. He looked at me like I had three heads. SMH…
Case: R3, 1 out. BR hits a deep fly ball. R3 starts to break towards home. Coach grabs R3 to stop him from going home and make him tag up. Ball clears fence for homerun.
My understanding is R3 is out, BR scores.
Now, assume 2 outs. R3 returns to 3rd to tag up, coach grabs him and pushes him towards home. Ball clears the fence A) after the assistance or B) before the assistance.
Rewatch @ the 7:20 mark. You'll find your confirmed answer. But no, since it is a homerun, the ball is dead, so Coaches interference is not ruled and R3 isn't out..
@@jameshickam1787 I think the answer here is far more nuanced than "only while the ball is live". have you read NFHS Casebook Play 3.2.2 Situation B? it states R3 is out for being assisted by the coach on a home run, however it is not specific as to exactly how or when the assistance happened. it seems to contradict Caseplay 3.2.2 Situation A which is word-for-word the same as caseplay #1 in the video here. the wording of the Situation A caseplay in the book makes clear (to me anyway) that the coach's assistance is ignored on this play because the ball is dead AND the assistance doesn't change anything - the runner had already touched 3B and tripped, and the coached helped him get up _beyond_ 3B. I do not think it means ALL possible assistance is allowed when the ball is dead.
Let me ask for a ruling on a slightly modified version of your Caseplay #1:
B1 hits a home run out of the park and, while approaching third leaps to celebrate with his head coach in the coaching box; in so doing he misses touching third base. The third-base coach physically stops the runner and pushes B1 back to third base and he completes his award by touching third and then home.
A) This is illegal, B1 shall be declared out and his run does not score
B) This is legal because the ball is dead
A
By a strict interpretation of the rule the coach has assisted his runner. A verbal warning to stop and turn around would be better and would not be inference. The pushing back would be interference. How are we defining assistance? Help would be one synonym.
@Ray Ray I'm asking in light of Patrick's assertion that this rule is only in force when the ball is live, and can't apply on a homerun because the ball is dead. I do not think that is correct. I asked a longer version of this question on the original version of this video, but it was replaced due to a mistake in an on-screen graphic.
@@davej3781 I didn’t catch Patrick saying the ball being dead matters. Runners can assist their teammates but not coaches.
I'm watching this video more for Little League and Babe Ruth level games. I see many coches wanting to stand 2-3 feet away from the third base runner and nowhere near the box. Also, following them down the line and back to the bag at times. All without touching the runner on most instances but being so close I feel like I could miss that call or with being so close that I now have to watch it more and maybe taking me away from focusing somewhere else. I have asked coaches to stay in the box without the opposing teams complain. These are 1-2 man games. What would you do?
Question: had this happen in a scrimmage game last weekend.
Catcher calls time to confer with his infielders.
Can the 3rd base coach piggyback off of this Defensive time out and not be charged with a conference?
No. The base coach and the offense would be charged a conference.
The rule is 3.4.5 and says it only applies to “Charged” conferences. The catcher and infielders calling time to meet at the mound is not a charged conference.
@@UmpireClassroom Thanks!
if coaches are complaining about the other coach not being in the box, there is more to that story, and will likely be a tense game.
true, but handling that is going to be step #1 of keeping it from spiraling out of control.
im only putting this comment here since it is the newest video you have. In your graphics you use r1, r2, r3 in the wrong order... i only say this due to the use of the nfhs rule books using r1 on third and r2 on second and r3 on first... this is a bases loaded not out situation... nfhs rule book would show r1 on second r4 on first to show 2 outs in a situation... hope this makes sense. p.s. love your videos keep up the good work you do. i really appreciate the work you do here.
Morons wrote the high school rule book. R-1 is on first base. R-3 on third base.
I had a tie score in the bottom 7 when a third base coach touched his base runner which stopped him from taking a step toward home, and then they hugged and celebrated. I almost called interference, but I wasn’t 100 percent sure the runner was assisted. How strictly should this rule be interpreted?
This is one of those rules where you'll never get promoted or higher ranked for making it. But you'll lose ranking by not making it when necessary.
So, only get it when it has to be done. Passing on a borderline is a great decision. Sounds like there was no play going to happen either.
@@UmpireClassroom yes sir. We had a dead ball time out right after the coach touched his runner- I walked out to my field umpire who happens to be my assignor, and asked him what he thought. I told him no one knows what we are talking about and if I walk away back to home plate we are going to roll and play ball. If I call interference the coach who was already animated was most likely going to be ejected from the game. The opposing pitcher was posturing when he struck batters out, and when he came to bat he was hit by a pitch. I almost issued warnings. The runner on third scored the winning run. 3-2 ballgame. I’m still questioning my choice. There was no real life advantage when the head coach/ third base coach touched his baserunner. He actually did prevent him from taking a step toward home, and then he hugged his player and they celebrated. It was an emotional and tense game. Do you think my conservative approach was the wise choice? By strict rules interpretation he did assist his runner, but the strict enforcement would not have made the game a better game.
@@UmpireClassroom I also passed on two incidental obstruction calls. In between innings I told my partner to watch Umpire Classroom.
@@rayray4192 - Make up your mind.. "Did the coach assist the runner during a live ball?" Your first statement was - you weren't 100 %, then later you indicated "He actually did prevent him from taking a step toward home..."
I'd suggest - call by rule, what you see... We have tools in place to address a coach's / player's actions for not following those rules.
Regarding promotions and higher ranking - personally, umpire your game to the standards provided. Let those who assign you judge you accordingly. (my 2 cents)..
@@jameshickam1787 I did make up my mind. My first inclination was to call interference on the coach. Technically, there was interference. In reality the coach touching his runner had no affect on the scenario. The call of interference would have been a very strict interpretation of the rule. Patrick Iis correct that it was a good choice to refrain from a strict interpretation and ruling. I had two seconds to make a decision. A very wise umpire asked me a question after a game in which I enforced a technical rule- “ Did your action make the game a better game? In a 2-2 game in the bottom of the 7th inning a strict call of coach interference would not have made the game a better game. Umpires umpire in the real world- not on You Tube. A concept that you have no understanding about.