I understand the rules may be different, but several years ago there was a high school softball player who hit a home run and blew her knee out running to first base. Her first base coach knew that he couldn’t assist her, nor could any of her teammates. After a few minutes of deliberation, two players from the other team lifted her up and physically carried her around the bases and had her touch each base. Unbelievable sportsmanship on display in that situation.
Pretty sure the rules allow a substitution at that point... at least in USA Softball, the rule is 6D: If an injury to a batter-runner or runner prevents them from proceeding to an awarded base, and the ball is dead, a substitute for the batter-runner or runner may be made. The substitute will be allowed to proceed to any awarded base(s).
I believe that was in a college game, although could've happened in a HS game somewhere. The rule was misapplied. When there's an injury to a runner, and the runner was awarded bases (home run in this case), a substitute enters to complete the base running obligations/awards.
@@hm51008 The rule was misunderstood and misapplied by all parties involved. An offensive runner MAY physically assist another runner. Additionally, if a runner is injured and is unable to complete their base running during a dead ball, they may be substituted for, and the substitute must touch all awarded bases yet untouched in legal order. The college "carry her around the bases" was a feel-good moment of sportsmanship, but by rule, was entirely unnecessary.
Logically speaking, there's no reason he should be out. He was going back home anyway, contact or otherwise, the angels weren't making a play, realistically he was safe and he scored a run. However, by the rules as they are written, there's definitely an argument where he's out so it sucks but it is what it is
Trying to imagine bases loaded inside the park home run where batter runner flies past third before R3 reaches home and they cram together like a conga line. GRAND SLAM!
@@fifiwoof1969batter/runner just shoves that runner that was on first into the other 2 and they all fall across the plate, lol. That'd be hilarious, lol.
I was thinking the plate umpire blew the call but that’s silly on my part. I was thinking of an active baserunner assisting another active runner, which is legal. The runner became a teammate and not a runner when he scored. It’s theoretically possible for a baserunner to assist another baserunner but I’ve never seen it.
@@kinkaid7477 I know, right. Next thing we can try is if no tag attempt is establish RIDICULOUS base paths without anyone passing preceding runners or being called for abandonment (is it decided by distance from home plate) so hear me out: Ball at the fence so unless the have 300+ feet arms no play is being made on ANY runner and all are free to choose their own base paths and 9 fielders struggle to find the ball (lights went out maybe - whatever doesn't kill THIS play, ball stays live at all times so no bases to be awarded by umpires) - we need time to get this just right 😉. R3 (let's call him Conga1) without touching home goes past home towards first base dugout, R2 veers down first base line, R1 heads towards 3rd base dugout until he's in line with first base foul line but foul side, mirroring R3. BR is directly between 3rd and home, same distance as others away from home as the others - we're set! Fielding team finds the ball and catcher is at on tiptoes on home plate so all runners still have a path to the plate waiting for the throw from Bo Jackson (HEATER). You wouldn't believe! It's on target and the catcher has it as they all slide in to home in the correct order. R3 feet first, R2 head first, R1 feet first (scissoring R3) and BR head first. Catcher is TRUCKED from all sides but before contact he pirouettes the glove at ground level around home plate and applies 4 tags before they touch. Sadly for the catcher he's killed instantly and drops the ball. What's the call? Quintuple murder suicide by the offensive team and the Offensive manager is immediately ejected and suspended for the next game. Is this a reviewable play? We need Lindsay's help here! Imagine this 3 runs down, bottom of the 9th with 2 out in game 7 of the world series with a 3 - 2 count and the pitcher was on a no hitter. EPIC way to break it up. DOES Jim Joyce apologize to the pitcher? Nap time!
What really sucks for Alvarez here is that his interference may not have even been necessary. It looks like McCann knew he missed home and was already turning to go back to touch the plate. He missed home because he tripped, and it looked like he was just regaining his balance when Alvarez touched (caught?) him.
I think the push was critical here. Like the 3rd base vision she showed where coached guided runner to base - assisted. Me thinks if they collided without the push perhaps he scores unless there's a right of way issue that the retired runner needs to give way at all times.
The rule just needs to be that no one on the offensive team that's not a base runner can touch a base runner or it's an out. This rule can be dead simple.
Plus then the guy was losing his balance so he trips and ",touches" him, or he high fives the runner at home then says hey go touch the plate, can't write a rule as touch it's too broad, if you just change the rule to player instead of coach at have it apply at all bases I think you should be OK
As long as the terminology matches the already codified terminology that once a runner touches home plate he is immediately no longer a "base runner". Let's be real the MLB can still mess this up.
Just a random, but overdue comment from me...Your content is fantastic and one of the best things for baseball on-line ever. Your collective, comprehensive approach does so much to expand and enhance our understanding of the game, and it opens up a whole world of knowledge and exposure to the details of the sport that revolutionizes many fans' perspectives and enjoyment of baseball. Thank you for all you and your channel do!
First of all, this is why baseball is such an amazing game. I have been watching baseball for 50 years, and you still can see stuff you have never seen before. Secondly, this is why this is one of the best done channels on all of YT. I watch the Brewers regularly, and i will see a weird play and wonder if Lindsey will have a video on that? Dumb question because you always do. Your videos are fun, interesting, well produced, and are put up within hours will videos of similar play. Simply amazing, and thank you. In reading the rules, put, say specifically prohibit a runner, a coach, runner who was put out from touching a runner. This was the on deck batter. I don't see that in the rule. You cite the Wendelstat manual says any member of the offensive team can't touch a runner. How can that be if the actual rule only covers coaches, and other runners Secondly what is a member of the offensive team? A bat boy surely isn't. So could the bat boy push the runner back to home. The spirit of the rules would say no, but the letter of the law would say yes. This seems like a huge loophole. Thanks again for the great videos. Cant wait for the next one!
So Wendlestedt is just an interpretation of the rules. There are multiple rules at play here which loosely cover it as she said. Wendlestedt just took all those rules and gave his interpretation. His interpretation is not “official” but it’s pretty damn close unless the MLB Umpire Manual says something. I imagine this loophole/gap in the rules will be closed this offseason and not seen again for 10 years like interference on an infield fly.
If a rule goes into the rulebook, it would make sense to have it be that a runner is out if they make contact with anyone on their team besides another active runner. However, without that rule on the books, I think a safe call here would have been fine. If Alvarez was in the dugout instead of by the plate, McCann scores. He almost certainly realized immediately that he missed the plate, and he had plenty of time to stop and go back without assistance. And even if he didn't realize he missed the plate, the Angels didn't see it, so the run would have scored after it went un-appealed.
The whole active runner part adds a lot of confusion. Imagine if Alvarez had also missed home plate. Then he would be entirely within his rights to assist his teammate in getting back to home plate because he would still be an active runner.
@@ericblair5731 Wrong. A runner who passes home is assumed to have touched it, and a preceding runner may not return to touch a missed base or missed plate after a following runner has crossed it.
@@ringosk1 We'll use the convention that the lead runner is R1 and the trail runner is R2. R1 is no longer a runner with status and loses his right to return to touch a missed base when R2 passes the plate and misses it. R2 is still a runner with status and may return to touch the missed plate. It is the passing of home by R2 which removes R1's ability to touch a missed base. (Similar side note, any runner who touches (or misses) the plate may not return to touch any other missed bag, such as 3B.) R1 may not physically assist R2 to return to the plate, because only runners with status may physically assist another.
I can understand how the Wendelstedt team came up with this interp. But I can also see multiple reasons to ignore this interpretation, especially on this particular case play. As mentioned in the vid, it is actually not a rule. It is an interpretation of an amalgamation of rules. It is from only one of the umpire schools and not directly from MLB. If not in the official rules, it should at least be covered in MLB umpire manual to be considered an official interpretation. On another note, I don’t think Porter’s post-review comments were exactly correct. The runner is not out for missing the plate-he did touch. The runner is out for “coach’s interference”(by a runner who already scored) prior to the touch of the plate.
This seems like a clear MSU rule. Especially because neither runner is an active runner at the point of the assist. The second runner's touching of home plate is assumed to have happened until appealed by the defense.
And while the MLB rules committee is at it, let CCS be the official umpire commentators of Baseball - beginning with allowing them to use game clips as part of fair use.
This reminds me of a video of a girl's softball game where the batter hits a home run over the fence, and sprains her ankle rounding a base. Her teammates can't help her around the bases without breaking these "assistance" rules, but, in a show of sportsmanship, the fielding team did.
I don't like the home plate call...any time you say something isn't explicitly against the rulebook you're essentially saying it doesn't violate the rules; when an umpire's judgement is called for, the rulebook points that out...not present in this rule. The third base call is an obvious out...the coach literally shoved the runner back to the bag, whereas the home plate play (which didn't involve third or first nor a coach) was merely a guy laying hands on someone while telling them go back and touch the plate.
Seems to me this needs a Type I Type II rule. The umpire needs to judge if the interference had not happened, what would be the outcome. In the Giant's example, the runner appeared to be walking off the field and the touching materially affected the outcome, and in the A's example the runner was heading home anyway AND the defensive team was not making a play on the runner.
How far passed home can a runner who missed home go before they are out for being out of the baseline? Would it come down to their path if they tried to get back to home?
Given that the out from missing the base would have to be given on appeal, I feel like the out from interference should also have been "on appeal." I don't expect the official to have done this, but if the replay rules allowed one to challenge physical assistance the ideal way to handle this would be to "no-call" the assistance. Then the defense could make the appeal play, and then object to the interference. That is all obviously way too complicated for the real world, but given the ambiguity in the rules it seems like it would have been the better way to handle the situation. One other thing I don't understand is the status of #50. He was at second base at the start of the play and so had just crossed the base and scored prior to the assistance. However given that players can cross home without stepping on it (as #52) did, how does #50 know that he has in fact scored? Imagine that in this same play #50 sees #52 miss the plate and pushes him back to the plate, but crucially #50 also missed home plate. Now #50 isn't actually a retired runner, so all your analysis goes out the window. #50 can assist #52! Now its incumbent upon the defense to make an appeal against #50 for missing the bag. This all just seems a bit absurd to me, and is a good reason for eliminating appeals in the sport. It overly complicates the rules to have decisions deferred like this.
@@teebob21 But #52 hadn't actually scored! That is why this whole appeals mechanism is so confusing. The status of runners who have passed but not stepped on home plate is very strange. For one section of the rules (whether or not runners have passed each other, and if they can be physically assisted) they are treated as runners without status, but for another purpose (going back and touching) they do have some kind of status. It is odd and confusing.
Ive never seen so many odd ball plays as we've seen this year. So, lets say the plate umpire didnt call anything, could the Angels have asked for a review? My gut says that nobody wouldve said a word and the umpire may have applied the wrong rule since a play wasnt being made........
the Angels would've needed to do the old school appeal before challenging the call if the Umpire ruled nothing since ruling nothing generally means the runner is safe due to there being no play on the runner. This is one of those situations that isn't covered in the rules and like she adds in the video, every Umpire has authority to determine what the result should be if it's not covered in the rules.
@@MattZRJSRoxy What would the Angels be appealing if the runner clearly returned to touch the plate? There was no play being made on the runner, so in reality, like Lindsay said, an argument could be made that interference shouldnt have been called
@@mptr1783 I don't know if something like this is reviewable if say the runner went back to touch the plate but let me see if I can find something in the rules regarding such a situation I doubt this would be reviewable either way but... let's look at Rule 5.08(a) to 5.08(b) just for the sake of things however that's more to do with the runner not wanting to advance generally which you aren't going to see in MLB anyway so it's kind of a moot point there. Nope, I currently don't see a way the Angels could've appealed and challenged if the runner went back, touched the plate and scored since you can't challenge any type of interference calls, I was going by if the Umpire hadn't ruled anything which meant the runner would've scored if he didn't rule anything because they are not supposed to tip to either team if a runner misses a base.
@@fifiwoof1969 technically you could argue that the assistance might've rendered the Angels' inability to even try but if the runner had touched the plate without assistance then there was nothing to appeal. The Angels could certainly ask the Umpires if they felt the assisted runner took too long to touch the plate if let's say he wasn't assisted and they could've ruled on that but who knows if that's a reviewable rule.
You're assuming the Halo coaches didn't notice that he missed home plate and wouldn't have asked for an appeal. The umpires did the work before allowing Halos to appeal.
This is one of those times where the umpires need to learn to explain calls more explicitly to the stadium. If you simply listened to the announcement made by the umpire, you may think McCann was called out because he missed home plate, instead of due to the assistance he received. Ump should have announced *why* the runner was out and then explain that Oakland was challenging in the hopes that the runner had touched the plate the first time, since that would obviously negate the interference.
It's not about learning. It's about what they are allowed to say. The only thing they can say is what was challenged and what is the result. That is it, no explanation is allowed
@@mse326Fine…then let’s put this on MLB. That explanation sucked. That explanation did NOT explain what was reviewed and what was confirmed. That to me sounded like and I am paraphrasing, “The runner missed the touch at home…and is out. Do not count the run.” There was zero mention of interference or physical assistance or anything else on that explanation. So, while the umpires did their jobs as directed, MLB needs to expand replay explanation scripts, please.
AND on a single play there's no limit to how many appeals can be valid - it's VERY broad - AND only one part of the appeal needs to succeed for the team to keep it for further use. No need to decide which part of a play is valid or not but highlight what you think is most valid. 20 seconds to think it all through or is it 20 seconds to say yes we will appeal and then time to think amongst the team, discuss what the appeal is with the umpire and then it's up to SCOTUS in New York.
Common sense here tells me an offensive player no longer "active" in the play should not be able to assist the batter or runner whether or not a play is being on said batter/runner. But I don't think there should be the hinder or impede a play being made on the runner proviso. The out or just scored runner is no longer part of this play (except as another "coach" in this instance) and should not be able to physically assist a batter or runner. Still allow for the umpire's judgement with instances of incidental contact like the base coach interference rule.
I do agree with covering this under the catch-all, and basically treating the retired runner as a "coach" for the purpose of the rule. I don't see any way that it's okay for a retired runner to basically act as a base coach but not also have the restrictions associated with being a base coach. I don't see the need to go down the rabbit hole of the manuals you cited, especially as one talked about during a dead ball? yet here the ball was always live (until the interference was called). I think it's fair to say it's clearly following in the spirit of the base coach physical assistance rule that we can apply it here in lack of a case play or approved ruling that says otherwise.
So was Alvarez the 1st base coach or the 3rd base coach? Cuz those are the people prohibited from physically assisting baserunners. Letter of the rule needs to apply. Makes way more sense to treat the just scored runner as a live runner than a 1st or 3rd base coach.
If there was no push but still contact with the retired runner - basic collision repaired solely by baserunner who missed home - would that change the decision a) here or b) on appeal? My guess is a) yes, live ball safe, but no signal to score the run until he legally touches home b) no, out on appeal base on retired runner interference. To me the push here is critical and caused the immediate out call.
Coach’s interference (non-active runner acting as base coach, in this case) is not an appeal play. But I do see how the runner passing the base is assumed to have scored until the defense appeals. But I’m not sure how to write the rule, or what umpire mechanics would be involved.
@@MwD676 base coaches have designated areas at first and third only - this retired runner is not a base coach but a team mate, I submit to you sir that coach's interference doesn't apply - you don't become a coach immediately upon scoring.
@@MwD676 also let's not confuse appeal with review. Lindsay mentioned something about denying the defense an opportunity to appeal and to me that means pitcher on the rubber, batter in the box - we're live again - pitcher steps off and throws to catcher who steps on home plate to complete the appeal. THAT'S what I think Lindsay means and it's what I mean for b) above.
@@fifiwoof1969 The rule being applied is Coach’s interference. The retired (or recently scored) runner did not interfere with a fielder in any way. So that rule does not apply. The on-deck batter very often serves as a base coach at the plate. So yes, in this play the runner who scored became a coach. Also bases coaches often leave the box, and are even expected to, in order to signal the runner. So their designated places are irrelevant. My issue with your use of the word appeal is when you said the runner would be out for interference on appeal. Maybe I still misread what you mean.
@MwD676 that's not the only rule Lindsay mentioned here - she analysed the Coach's interference part of this play (collision and push) and in my opinion she came to the conclusion that it was interference because of the PUSH by the retired runner - BUT there's so much more to this play that may also affect the umpire's decision but according to umpire's mechanic she felt he called interference. Was that mentioned after review decision by the umpire? I don't think it was - umpire's explanation left a LOT to be desired! Is that because the challenge wasn't specific enough? We don't know because we're not shown the conversation between the offensive coach when calling for review and umpire who has to communicate it to New York. There's a LOT missing here that you're just ignoring. My question is if there was no push after the initial collision (separate the two because NOTHING is simultaneous in Baseball) would umpire still call interference OR make no call since still legal because no interference (the collision was accidental and no right of way rule exists here, these are both on the same team) You might need to rewatch this video to understand all the different parts of this play she analysed and consider the entire "jigsaw puzzle" instead of just a single piece. Until you do that and have fully absorbed all of her information I wouldn't bother replying here because I'll just ask you to rewatch the video - AGAIN!!!!!
The "you'll like this video" box couldn't have come up in any other corner than the one you were in at the end? I feel deprived of your wit at the end.
It's not a rule in NCAA or NFHS baseball. It's an interp in MLB/OBR and NFHS. NCAA doesn't have an interp that I know of but in 2010 or 11 when MLB player Morgan was called out for being assisted we did have a word of mouth opinion from NCAA rules interpreter Paronto that NCAA rules the same way. Currently I don't know how they rule.
@@jamesmurray3948 Odd that the NFHS softball rule book specifically calls out any offensive player other than another runner assisting a runner, but baseball is completely silent.
@@MaydayAggro I wonder if softball added that rule after the Morgan assist call in MLB. Prior to that most of us did not know a teammate could not assist.
Depends on the rule set. Yes for rule sets that make appeals automatic, usually lower levels of play. No for rule sets that require traditional, live ball appeals, usually higher levels of play.
This is not retired/scored runner interference. The WUM quote was glossed over and includes any other teammate who is not an active runner. The call would be the same if the on deck batter assisted rather than the scored runner.
Yeah, but that is just made up. OBR explicitly prohibits base coaches from “physically assisting” base runners. If that is going to apply to anyone else on the field, the rule needs to say so. The rule on interference by a runner who just scored says nothing about physical assistance. Yeah, umpires get to interpret the rules but they don’t get to invent new ones.
I don't like this result; it is stretching the rules too much. Only the official MLB publications (OBR, Umpire Manual, directives from the Commissioner's Office, etc.) have the "force of law". Outside publications' interpretations have persuasive value to the extent that they are founded on the actual rules. In the black-letter rules, there is base-coach interference and interference with a play being made on a runner; we have neither here.
I'm not convinced this should have been called. We (you) had to do a lot of mental gymnastics and marginal applications of multiple rules to arrive at the interference call. I know it's hard for the umpire to do in real-time, but I still feel like the only way this should be called is if it deprived the defense of making a play (any play including an appeal). You froze the video showing that the ball was just getting to shortstop when McCann re-touched home plate. I would have to argue that this was not in any way, shape or form interference by the retired/on-deck runner as designated in the rule.
I think it is pretty clearly the wrong call. We have a rule explicitly prohibiting base coaches from physically assisting runners. In the very same section we have a rule prohibiting just scored runners from inhibiting the defense from making a play on a runner. No play was being made on the runner. If physical assistance by a just scored runner was meant to be prohibited, it would say so in the rule.
How about the runner over ran the plate and abandoned the basepath after leaving the dirt circle away from the plate. Especially if his dugout is in the same direction as he was going.
I don't see the push as an unfair advantage in this play. There is no active play, so I guess I don't understand under the spirit of the rule why the runner is out here.
Looks like over umpiring to me. There was no play by the defense and the way I read the rules there was no hinderance. It has no bearing on the play. The runner was returning to the plate on his own. Simple a dumb call!
@@keithcourvill1529 so sad you can’t read! I don’t consider touching a guy and saying “hey touch the plate” assisting or helping the runner especially when he’s already turning around to correct his error!!!
My dad is a baseball umpire and we always talk about these judgements from an ump point of view of maintaining the spirit of the game. His thought is McCann should be out because he was dumb enough to miss home plate during his initial run in to score. That the rule isn’t explicit allows the ump to interpret what rules are there, negatively against a poor runner.
@@MwD676 this play (and the example shown at 3rd with base coach) involved a CLEAR push AFTER initial collision (separate those two things) by the retired runner back towards home, where runner was already heading - now imagine this same play, same collision but no push from retired runner. Now, having clarified that, have another go at my very first reply above. I think you misunderstood what I said.
@@fifiwoof1969 Doesn’t matter whether it was the right hand catch/stop, or the left hand push. Only matters that the umpire judged that this contact “physically assisted” the runner in returning to the plate. Don’t think we are disagreeing in any way. Just focusing on different elements of the play.
