THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I don’t disagree with the comments above about whether the call should be made.  I was watching live, and I’ve seen the replays a couple of times:  it certainly doesn’t look like the ump saw it. 

Yet it’s pretty clear he DID see it, in his peripheral vision (or something).  There is NO hesitation when he makes the call, and he points very clearly to indicate there was contact.  I cannot imagine an ump not seeing any contact whatsoever, and then saying there was contact so emphatically.  What are the odds he’d be right and two guys touched fingers? 

If he didn’t see it, someone told him.  But who would it be? Who could inform the ump, so quickly, while he was distracted watching Hudson play shortstop from second base, and have the message get through so clearly that he would make an emphatic call?

The home plate umpire appears to be looking right at the play (at least by the direction of his hips), and yet he also doesn’t confer with 3rd base ump.  Is the umpiring getting worse, or are there just too many camera angles available for replays?  This can’t continue, right?

That is a weird one.  Definitely looks like he can’t possibly see what happened. And I emphatically agree that there is no call for the umpire to call interference on that play.  Clearly the rule is not intended for such incidental contact as that.

The rule is this:

“It is interference by a batter or a runner when 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 resuming to or leaving third base or first base.”

Does it have to be intentional?  No.

Did he physically assist him in this instance?  I don’t think so.  As Tango says, if the rule wanted to specify that ALL contact results in an interference call, whether it assists the runner or not, it would say so…

I think he may have seen Young touch hands, actually.  It looks to me like he’s looking straight down the third base line, so Young is definitely in his field of view.  When he sees the contact, he looks over to Hudson and then looks back and starts making his call.

I agree with Mike. In the replay at the 44-53 second mark of the video, the umpire’s face is obscured by the lead runner approaching home for about 3 seconds, until after the contact was made. You cannot see his face until almost a second afterward, at which time he is begun to turn his head to look toward 3rd. His head is not turned much however, and he definitely could have seen the contact clearly.

Rule 7.09(h):
“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 base or first base.”

It does look like the contact was inadvertent and the 3rd base coach tried to jerk his hand back after contact occurred, but it was a close play, so even a very slight assistance in helping Young stop his forward momentum may have made a difference. The rule allows the umpire to balance the significance of the assistance against the closeness of the play.

"The rule allows the umpire to balance the significance of the assistance against the closeness of the play.”

I don’t see where the rule allows any such thing, Joe.  The rule says that if the coach assists the runner, then the runner is out. It does not say that the “assist” must make a difference.  If the coach assists the player, but there actually was no play on the runner, the rule says that the runner is out.

If they wanted the umpire to “balance the closeness of the play with the assist” it would have some verbiage implying or saying so, such as, “And said assistance had or could have had an effect on the outcome of the play,” or some such thing.  That would be a can of worms of course.

I suppose that this play could have gone either way. Had the umpire done nothing, I doubt anyone would have even noticed it.  And if the MIN manager complained, the umpire could easily have said that the contact was accidental and incidental.  On the other hand, I’m sure he told Washington (the TEX coach) that even though the contact was accidental and slight, it was enough to possibly have made a difference in the play, since the play was in fact close at third.  Or he could have simply told him that the accidental touch ever so slightly allowed the runner to get back to third, and he didn’t have to make a judgment as to whether it affected the play or not (which is correct, according to the rule)…

As I understand it, there is a massive book with interpretations of the rules.  It would be very interesting to know what is said about this rule there.  It’s possible the accepted interp is to rule this way on any contact when there is a potential play.

Well, one thing is certain - he did see contact.  And to Mike’s point, it was probably when his face was hidden from the camera.

one thing is certain

No, the only thing that is certain is that he CALLED contact.  Whether he actually saw it in his line of sight, in his peripheral vision, or even just presumed it based on reactions of the coach and player, who knows.

And, even if there was contact (it’s not even clear that there was), that’s got to be the most incidental of all contacts possible.

Whether the coach was there to physically stop him with his pinky finger or not, Michael Young’s deceleration and direction would not be any different.  And that is the point.  Did the coach physically do something directly on Young that would make him change his speed or direction?  No.  By the time contact, if there was even such a thing, occurred, Young was able to come to a stop at that point.  There was no assist.

Mickey,

I agree that your strict interpretation is the more defensible one. “The judgment of the umpire” can mean ‘judging what did happen’, or ‘judging what would have happened’. But at least often the 2nd intended meaning is explicitly spelled out in the rules, as you point out. In this case, the judgments are “was there contact?” and “was the contact assistance?”

Does the umpire have any discretion to judge that this degree of contact is not automatically assistance, regardless of whether a play is even attempted on the runner? As the rule is written, perhaps not. I’ve never seen this before, and perhaps the play is so rare that there is no customary interpretation which might be less strict.

"No, the only thing that is certain is that he CALLED contact.  Whether he actually saw it in his line of sight, in his peripheral vision, or even just presumed it based on reactions of the coach and player, who knows”

It’s certain that he CALLED contact; it’s your speculation that he didn’t see it.  You’re supposing that the umpire, focused on the base, nonetheless decided (without really seeing it) that he was going to make an obscure call and end the game.  I don’t find that credible.

Sure looks to me in the video that he was looking at the runner round the base, saw the contact, glanced at the fielder to see what the play was there and then called the runner out due to the contact.  When his head first becomes visible from behind the runner scoring he is looking towards the runner and then glances towards second base, IMO.

Also, you can’t even see his eyes in the video, so how do you know what he is and isn’t looking at?

They touched, Young is out, topic and game over.  All that matters.

I don’t find it reasonable either that he didn’t see any contact yet he made the call.

#13, contact does not equal out, just in case you haven’t read even one single comment above yours…

I did read every comment above mine, I was at the game, I was sitting along the third base line. 

Rule 7.09(h):
“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 base or first base.”

Says right in the rules, TOUCHING.  I would review the replay and would consider the contact between Young and Third Base Coach to be TOUCHING.  That makes him out. Like I said

MGL = Ignorant

isu: you are misreading.  The sentence, to paraphrase, is this:

“IF by touching, to the effect that he physically assists”.

That’s what that sentence is trying to say.  If it wanted to stop at touching, it would say this:
“In the judgment of the umpire, the base coach at third base, or first base, touches the runner.”

With the new reading in bold, and the rest of the sentence removed.  The original rule is a CONDITIONAL sentence.  This new rule is unconditional.

isu is reading the original rule as unconditional.

***

I also presume, isu, is that you came over from Neyer.  You get a short leash here.  The only people allowed to act like a$$holes around here are me and MGL, and we do our best to not do that.  If you need to express yourself completely, go elsewhere.

Tangotiger = More ignorant..

I am trying not to infer any opinion into the rule unlike you (tangotiger) and MGL. 

you are asserting yourself as an individual capable of making such a call based on your beliefs as to how the rule should be intepreted.  Seems like you are doing more for the runner than the rulebook.  Conditional or unconditional, as you put it, is still part of an MLB game.  What if the runner rounds first to the inside, is he out if tagged before he retreats to first???  Tough call for you guys who try to umpire an MLB game from your computer.

I think it was said best in the postgame interviews.  Each teams has some “incidental” or “Unconditional” related issues during the 162 game regular season.

Posts by Rangers fans alike agree that for as ambiguous as the rule is to “intepret” for you, the reader, umpires have made the call in previous games.  no precedent was set, only followed.

“The correct call was made, because even though he didn’t push or assist Young, Anderson physically touched Young in order to get his attention.”

“Good call. Coaches and players push and push the limits and then cry when they get their hand caught in the cookie jar. Coach should not have been there. Hate to see a game end that way, but unless the rules are enforced, what do you have. I bet you every 3rd base coach in the country now knows that rule and will stand back.”

Also, Tangotiger.  Dont be such a monster as to state that I cannot read.  It’s such poor manners to stoop to such a level to increase your position.

BTW, I’ve been reading this blog and many others for weeks regarding UZR and Postseason odds.

To Sean’s (#12) point above, based on the timing in the video, I think the umpire saw the 3rd base coach with his hand outstretched and Young slamming on the breaks, but I don’t think we can assume he saw the contact.  If he was really trying to watch the runner/coach contact, he would have had to keep his head there longer.  Instead, I think he anticipated that contact would be made, and thus assumed it actually happened.  This is a common tactic is basketball refereeing; the referee sees a defender jump in the air and anticipates that he will foul.  Instead, the defender pulls back but is called for the foul anyway.

Sean#7 may be correct.  I learned the rule growing up as touching = out any time there’s a play.  I see now that is a strained interpretation of the rule, but it certainly could have become a generally-accepted, common-law interpretation over the years.  Or perhaps touching always equals assisting unless it is clearly hindering. 

Certainly the presumption ought to be that touching is assisting.  That would be easier to administer, I think, and it’s very easy for coaches and runners to avoid contact.

Certainly the presumption ought to be that touching is assisting. 

Why is that certain?  The presumption should be that touching is NOT assisting unless he is actually assisting.  If you are 10% sure he’s assisting, is that an assist?  If you are 10% sure he’s out, is that an out?

The ref comes into play when he KNOWS that some rule was broken, not when he thinks some rule might have been broken.  The presumption has to be innocence, that nothing happened unless the witness knows that something did happen.

Now, if the convention is to be lazy, apply zero-tolerance policy, or whatnot, then so be it.  But, the rule is a conditional sentence, and strictly interpreted, I don’t see any assist there.

Imagine that Young rounded third base and STOPPED.  And, for whatever reason, he and the 3B coach hugged because, I dunno, the runner from 3B scored, and they though he was safe or something.  But, the runner made the second out, and then the coach released Young, and then Young scurries back to 3B.  Did the coach assist Young?

No, because whether the coach made contact with Young or not had no impact in Young’s speed or direction.

When judges issue their rulings, they always follow a process of “is this test satisfied?”.  In order for, I dunno, discrimination to exist, the judge will analyze whether the facts at hand pass whatever tests are required to satisfy discrimination.  If those tests are satisfied, then discrimination exists.

You apply that kind of analysis in all judgements.  If you see this partial sentence: “physically assists him in returning to or leaving third base or first base”, then you design a test for that.  The test could simply be: does the coach touching the player cause the runner to change speed or direction?  If the answer is no, then that test is not satisfied, and therefore, that part of the sentence is not applicable.  Without that part of the sentence applying, the rule doesn’t apply.

Now, obviously, the umpire doesn’t have the luxury of time to do this.  Which is why they would rely on experience and studying the (likely bigger) umpire manual to handle these issues.

Tango,

That’s an example of a 0% chance of assisting the runner, yet your initial hypothetical is about being “10% sure he is assisting the runner.” It seems reasonable to call the runner out in any instance where a nonzero chance of assistance occurs, and ignore it in instances like your hugging example.

I am 100% sure - not 10% or 90% - isucarns is trolling.

For me personally, if I were the ump, I’d go with a “preponderance of evidence” much like they do in civil cases in court.  Which I understand to be 51% or more.  In other words, if it’s more likely he assisted than not, I’d call the runner out.  If it’s more likely he did not assist, I’d call him safe.

I think that’s already the standard applied to other aspects of umpiring, like balls & strikes and plays at a base.

Re: the preponderance of evidence

I would guess (as we all are here) that the umpire training would cover this in detail.  Without us knowing what their training is on this we really don’t have any legs to stand on regarding how the rule was applied by the umpire in question here.  It is interesting to discuss, but unless there is an umpire here with some knowledge of their training I’m not sure we can answer this question definitively.

Playing devil’s advocate here, but couldn’t the argument be made that Young only knew to go back to third because the third base coach touched him (albeit very lightly) and therefore Young was “assisted” (mentally not physically) in going back to third?

I was no major league umpire, but I did umpire up through high school age games, and the single first thing we were taught is “There’s no such thing as ‘tie goes to the runner.’” And to me, the concept of “tie goes to the runner” implies one should call a runner safe unless you know beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. the 95 or 99% certainty required for a criminal conviction) that they are out.  They stressed the importance of every play being out or safe, and every pitch being a ball or a strike.  This to me implies that 51% is enough.

Side note: I also refereed hockey up through high school age games, and the first thing we were taught in referee school was “if you can’t see the puck, blow the whistle”.  I’ll never forget that either; it’s a very useful rule for refereeing.  Saves a lot of goalies from getting sticks in the ribs, on the back of their hand, etc.

Brian, if you make that argument, then really any time the third base coach makes the windmill motion towards home, he’s “assisting” (mentally) the runner.

27/Mike - Yes, the 3rd base coach is assisting the runner with a windmill - but not through “touching or holding”, which is the rule.

It goes back to the test I’m proposing: the coach points to Young, but doesn’t touch him.  What does Young do?  Stops.  The coach points to Young, and his pinky and Young’s hand touch.  What does Young do?  Stops.

Regardless of the physical involvement of the coach in this case, Young will do the same thing.  The physical assist only passes the test if Young would behave differently if not touched.

If you want to argue that the pinky touch was the catalyst for Young stopping, that without it, Young’s speed and direction would be different, go ahead.  I look at that play, and see that the coach, regardless of contact, had no impact on Young’s speed and direction.

That’s a reasonable test I’m proposing.

What’s your (royal you) reasonable test?

What can we infer about the coach’s intent when he stuck out his arm like that? To me he is doing that to give the runner a visual signal to stop and go back. By doing that, he takes and accepts an increased risk of contact. At that point, it goes from being a visual signal to a physical assist, even if he did not intend the contact, or push the runner back towards third.

If I’m right about the arm being extended as a stop sign, then I’m OK with the ump’s call.

I’ve watched that play numerous times and it’s not clear at all the umpire got the call wrong, which means he got it right.  Young was out twice—on contact and on the throw.

Despite the wording of the rule suggesting that incidental contact is permissible, the crew chief’s words after the game indicate the interpretation of the rule prohibits any contact.

Crew chief Tim Tschida spoke for the umpires.

“The ruling on the play is that a base coach either touching, physically assisting in any way, with the baserunner is not allowed and the runner is called out,” Tschida said.

Tschida told a pool reporter that the Rangers argued that any contact was accidental and didn’t interfere with the runner’s progress.

“They can’t make contact,” Tschida said.

http://es.pn/bztYzc

Just wanted to make note that the linked-to video does not show all of the angles of the play.  I was watching MLB Network shortly after this play happened, and they had another camera angle (seemingly from the 3rd base on deck circle area) which showed Young’s hand contacting the coach’s in the foreground, and the umpire in the background clearly watching.  I could even discern his eyes flare as the contact happened.

The question of whether he saw it or not is based on that link not being a complete record of the video evidence.

As far as the application of the rule, I think it could likely go either way.  I mean, what was Young’s intent in sticking his arm out towards his base coach and what was the coach’s intent in stepping toward his path of travel?  Seems like you could support either interpretation.

Wow.  Two things (and two things only) have to occur for the umpire to call the runner out.  One, physical contact.  And two, that physical contact must assist the runner (in...). Number one is not a judgment call, although obviously an umpire can get it wrong.  Number two is a judgment call, of which there is necessarily going to be a gray area.  This call was in the gray area, although clearly it is in the far left (towards NO assistance) of that gray area.

What more can you say?

BTW, if “touching” (and touching only) equaled out, then every time the third base coach gave a hand slap, a high five, or a pat on the bottom to a runner rounding third on a home run, he would be out.

And yes, isucarnz is being a troll. I am close to 100% certain of that.  For his information, saying that someone did not read the comments in a sarcastic manner, while rude, is not against the TOS on this blog.  Calling someone ignorant is…

Tango, while I think your test best embodies the intent of the rule (no physical help to baserunners), I still worry that it would be difficult to administer.  Umpires have a lot to worry about and to watch, and it may be tough to judge whether a runner altered his stride ever so slightly. 

It’s easier to simply ask if they touched.  That would be my reasonable test (with exceptions when there was clearly no assistance and no play was possible--high fives are OK).  You can argue proportionality all you want, but here it is extremely easy to avoid any harsh application of the rule--don’t touch!  Everybody already knows you’re not supposed to touch, as was evidenced by the 3B coach’s reaction in this case.

btw, in #19, I wasn’t arguing that the rule as written requires the presumption of assistance, just that having that presumption would be more workable. 

Also, I think that #30’s argument is pretty clever--the coach “physically assist[ed]” the runner by performing a physical motion that touched and assisted the runner.

Sean/24: “Without us knowing what their training is on this we really don’t have any legs to stand on regarding how the rule was applied by the umpire in question here.  It is interesting to discuss, but unless there is an umpire here with some knowledge of their training I’m not sure we can answer this question definitively.”

As a teen who got level 3 certification in Ontario, my boss was a former a minor league umpire who insisted that we call everything the same way a professional does. He called coach assists the same way he called obstruction - would the runner have reached the base had the infraction not occurred? So my sense is that the 3rd base umpire thought the play was so close that any contact may have been enough to help Young.

Mike/26: “the single first thing we were taught is ‘There’s no such thing as ‘tie goes to the runner.’’ And to me, the concept of ‘tie goes to the runner’ implies one should call a runner safe unless you know beyond reasonable doubt (i.e. the 95 or 99% certainty required for a criminal conviction) that they are out.

From my old boss, the minor league ump, again - we were told that the big leaguers interpret that to mean that the runner is out unless you know they beat the ball. (Off the top of my head, i think the rule actually is something like ‘the runner must beat the ball’.) He assured us that this was also the way that pro umps called it, but he was also a particularly argumentative and surly umpire - he liked that this enabled us to respond to runners or coaches who argued ‘it’s a tie!’ with a snarky rejoinder about beating the ball and rereading the rulebook. (He also used it as a ploy to get coaches to bring the rulebook on to the field - which would enable him to toss them from the game.)

I still worry that it would be difficult to administer

I agree!

That’s why you simply need to change the rule to: no touch, and end it there.

This is similar to the zero-tolerance policy we’ve been talking about with golf, that you get an automatic out for doing something that may be benign in some cases, but outrageous in others.  And so, rather than be burdened with the administration cost of the rule, you simply invoke zero-tolerance on its a$$.  Players learn from Little League to no-touch, third base coaches learn to stay in their darn box (there’s a rule that should be codified), and we have no issue.  And if someone does break the rule, then everyone accepts it, except for the novice fans.

You do this because while the proportionality of the remedy in no way matches the offense, the administration of the offense is too nuanced and requires too much effort from the referee.

So, I’m not arguing what the rule should be.  I was arguing about what the rule IS and how it’s written.

If you are asking me what should be done, I don’t really have much preference either way, other than the rule should be written as intended.

MGL/24: “BTW, if “touching” (and touching only) equaled out, then every time the third base coach gave a hand slap, a high five, or a pat on the bottom to a runner rounding third on a home run, he would be out. “

If the ball is no longer in play (due to the Home Run), can interference really be called? I do not believe this is an analogous event.

Something that also isn’t being discussed in this whole debate is how to treat base coaches (particularly 3rd base) that step outside of their demarcated box.  At what point is he not interfering with play on the field?  I guess I see it as there was contact with the third base coach, accidental or not, and the third base coach was outside of the section of the field he was allowed to be in.  That alone would constitute interference in my mind.

Not to say he’s the only one who’s ever done it, but it really should be live ball = coach does not touch players.

What about this rule:

4.05
(a) The offensive team shall station two base coaches on the field during its term at bat, one near first base and one near third base.
(b) Base coaches shall be limited to two in number and shall (1) be in team uniform, and (2) remain within the coach’s box at all times.
PENALTY: The offending base coach shall be removed from the game, and shall leave the playing field.
Rule 4.05 Comment: It has been common practice for many years for some coaches to put one foot outside the coach’s box or stand astride or otherwise be slightly outside the coaching box lines. The coach shall not be considered out of the box unless the opposing manager complains, and then, the umpire shall strictly enforce the rule and require all coaches (on both teams) to remain in the coach’s box at all times.
It is also common practice for a coach who has a play at his base to leave the coach’s box to signal the player to slide, advance or return to a base. This may be allowed if the coach does not interfere with the play in any manner.

This seems pretty cut and dry to me. If the Ump saw contact, you need to rule the runner out.

# 34

“Number two is a judgment call, of which there is necessarily going to be a gray area.  This call was in the gray area, although clearly it is in the far left (towards NO assistance) of that gray area.”

I don’t think this is fair. I think there is an assumption being made, which might be reasonable, but which is not necessarily correct, that to be enforced the assistance must be material.

If Young is trying to get back to the base and 1 pico newton of force from the contact helps in his deceleration (away from) or acceleration (towards) the base, then by the letter of the rule he is out. Can you claim that this is not the case from any of the videos.

Ari, if all that requires for direction or speed to be altered is for a non-zero force be applied, then why doesn’t the rule simply say “no touch”?  Why does it make it a conditional statement?

Exactly which condition would need to be satisfied in order for the rule to NOT be called?

Because if there is no condition, if there is no test other than touch/notouch, then the rule should be reworded from a conditional statement to an unconditional one.

What if a runner is on 3rd and a triple is hit. The runner trips on his shoelace and stumbles and makes contact with the coach who is in the coach’s box. He goes on to score anyway.

Apparently, they don’t want the runner to be called out in this situation, which is why the rule was made conditional.

That is a much different situation than that of the Young play.

I agree that making it unconditional would be better. But according to the way I believe the present rule was written and intended, the ump was correct. Well, he was at least 51% correct.

#41
What if the runner is accidentally knocked down by the coach but is still able to make it back to third (or on to home)?  Would you still want the runner called out even though the coach actually hurt the runner’s chances of being safe?

"I don’t think this is fair. I think there is an assumption being made, which might be reasonable, but which is not necessarily correct, that to be enforced the assistance must be material.”

That is 100% incorrect. There is nothing in the rule that remotely suggests that the assistance must be material - only that the touching must assist the runner in returning to or advancing (or whatever the wording is) to the base.  The “gray” area is whether there was assistance or not.

For example, if a player coasts into third base, rounds the bag, there is no play on the runner, and the coach gives him a high five or pats his behind, there is NO assistance, but there is contact.  What if contact causes the runner to be impeded from returning to the bag rather than assisted in doing so? I’m pretty sure that has happened before, where the runner tries to return to third base but runs into his coach.  That is also clearly not against the rules, since there was no assistance in returning to the bag, despite blatant contact.

There are plenty of other examples of contact where there is clearly no assistance, whether the contact is accidental or intentional.  In this case, the contact was accidental and slight.  Whether any assistance occurred is debatable and that is why it is in that gray area…

Yeah, basically I was thinking along the same lines as #42 and #43.

In that the conditional rule is written to prevent penalization of contact that in no way could be possibly be construed as beneficial.

ElB: the coach “accidentally” gets in his way, therefore stopping forward motion suddenly.  Runner gets back to 3B safely.  Well, he was definitely helped.

Runner goes home safely.  He was definitely not helped.

Runner is in a run-down, and is safe (somewhere).  Was he helped?  Maybe.

You have to choose if you want justice and administration of nuances, or you want simplicity, zero-tolerance, golf-like rules.

Once you decide that, then write the darn rule the way you intend it.

re #39: I believe the assistance rules are still in effect during a home run trot—I think I have read some rule discussions that gave the example of a player injuring himself while circling the bases during a home run trot. He can’t be assisted by his team, but a pinch-runner can be substituted in his place.

If I remember correctly, I once read about a situation in some local league where a player was injured, and the defense carried the person around the bases in order to allow her to officially mark her home run.