3rd base coach int?

[nfhs ump]

NFHS, HS varsity game.

Enjoy

R1 on third, 1 out, HOT SHOT one hop at F5 in front of the base, back hand attempt and ball deflects off of her glove while ball is over the base line and is a fair ball. Deflected ball zips directly toward 3rd base coach who turns and ball hits him in the middle of the back. R1 heads for home and F5 quickly gathers ball and fires home where R1 is tagged before she reaches the plate.


Now what if, and this is the actual play that happened, the fair ball deflects off F5 and is zipping directly toward coach's face, coach's instinctive reaction brings hands up and he catches the ball. He quickly tosses the ball to F5 (maybe thinking it was a foul ball) and she throws the ball to home and catcher tags R1 before she reaches home.

I went 3-5-6.

If any offensive team member, other than a runner or retired runner,
interferes with a batted fair ball or foul fly ball, the batter is declared out. If,
in the judgment of the umpire, the interference prevented a possible double play,
the batter and runner closest to home shall be declared out.
PENALTY: (Art. 6) The ball is dead immediately and the batter and runner may
be out. (8-6-16,17,19; 7-4-12)

Batter Runner is out and R1 returned to third.

My personal debate, did coach actually "interfere" with a batted fair ball? He did stop the ball from following its natural flight, which would have been towards the fence in foul territory in the outfield and R1 scores easily BR easily to second. He did not interfere with a defensive player making a play on a batted ball, but this is not about interfering with a player, this is about interfering with a ball. He in fact help the defense in both situations, which is the opposite of interfering.

Of course the Defensive Coach wants a live ball nothing, as he would now have 2 outs and a runner on first.

Are you with me?

 

[Sweet Lou]

I think if the ball inadvertently hits a coach it would be treated the same as if a ball hit an umpire. But I'm not an ump and would be curious about the actual ruling.

 

[Ajaywill]

You got it right.

By putting his hands up and catching the ball, he has "done something" to interfere with the batted ball. I realize that it was probably an instinctual move to protect his face, but the fact remains that he interfered with the ball and the defenses opportunity to continue play.

I also agree with the first part of the OP, and could see where that could be interpreted as the coach trying to get out of the way and the ball just hitting him, which is likely not interference.

 

[MTR]

NFHS, HS varsity game.

Enjoy

R1 on third, 1 out, HOT SHOT one hop at F5 in front of the base, back hand attempt and ball deflects off of her glove while ball is over the base line and is a fair ball. Deflected ball zips directly toward 3rd base coach who turns and ball hits him in the middle of the back. R1 heads for home and F5 quickly gathers ball and fires home where R1 is tagged before she reaches the plate.


Now what if, and this is the actual play that happened, the fair ball deflects off F5 and is zipping directly toward coach's face, coach's instinctive reaction brings hands up and he catches the ball. He quickly tosses the ball to F5 (maybe thinking it was a foul ball) and she throws the ball to home and catcher tags R1 before she reaches home.

I went 3-5-6.

If any offensive team member, other than a runner or retired runner,
interferes with a batted fair ball or foul fly ball, the batter is declared out. If,
in the judgment of the umpire, the interference prevented a possible double play,
the batter and runner closest to home shall be declared out.
PENALTY: (Art. 6) The ball is dead immediately and the batter and runner may
be out. (8-6-16,17,19; 7-4-12)

Batter Runner is out and R1 returned to third.

My personal debate, did coach actually "interfere" with a batted fair ball? He did stop the ball from following its natural flight, which would have been towards the fence in foul territory in the outfield and R1 scores easily BR easily to second. He did not interfere with a defensive player making a play on a batted ball, but this is not about interfering with a player, this is about interfering with a ball. He in fact help the defense in both situations, which is the opposite of interfering.

Of course the Defensive Coach wants a live ball nothing, as he would now have 2 outs and a runner on first.

Are you with me?

The question here was did the coach actually interfere with the defense's ability to make a play? If anything, it seems to have enabled the defense to make a play. However, if the coach takes possession of the ball to the point he can toss it to anyone, you wouldn't know what could happen since I would believe the ball would be dead at that moment and INT is called.....again, assuming that the umpire judges that the coach actually held the ball instead of just slapping it away.

BTW, R1 would be ruled out and the BR awarded 1B if it were ruled INT

 

[MaverickAH]

The question here was did the coach actually interfere with the defense's ability to make a play? If anything, it seems to have enabled the defense to make a play. However, if the coach takes possession of the ball to the point he can toss it to anyone, you wouldn't know what could happen since I would believe the ball would be dead at that moment and INT is called.....again, assuming that the umpire judges that the coach actually held the ball instead of just slapping it away.

BTW, R1 would be ruled out and the BR awarded 1B if it were ruled INT

I agree with you for the most part. In this case it does not seem that the coach intentionally interfered with the defense's ability to make a play.

However.........

Based on the description of the play:

If the ball deflected off of the coach after deflecting off of the defensive player, the ball should remain live.

If the ball was caught by the coach, in an act of self defense, after deflecting off of the defensive player, I would have an immediate dead ball. I would've returned the runner to 3B & awarded the B/R 1B.

 

[MTR]

I agree with you for the most part. In this case it does not seem that the coach intentionally interfered with the defense's ability to make a play.

However.........

Based on the description of the play:

If the ball deflected off of the coach after deflecting off of the defensive player, the ball should remain live.

If the ball was caught by the coach, in an act of self defense, after deflecting off of the defensive player, I would have an immediate dead ball. I would've returned the runner to 3B & awarded the B/R 1B.

What do you have to support that ruling?

 

[Umpire]

Quite simply, the offense, including the base coaches, generally has to vacate areas needed by the defense to execute plays. Base coaches are not required to disappear, but they cannot interfere. The defense doesn't isn't "protected" and they don't get rewarded when they aren't capable of executing a play correctly. Does the coach cause interference or does a horrendous play bring the ball toward the base coach, where it shouldn't have been if the play was executed properly?