Rulebook 101: Coaching out of the box

In Oakland Sunday afternoon, the Orioles screwed up two bunt plays in the 10th and lost, the run scoring on an overthrow at third base. They probably would have lost even if A’s third-base coach Mike Gallego had not been allowed to get so close to his runner, while alerting him to the overthrow, that he stepped on the foul line (which is fair territory) just afterwards, while the play was still on.

Did Gallego violate the rules?

 

I can’t tell. The relevant rule first declares that the coach shall “remain within the coach’s box at all times.” That’s cut and dried, right? But the subsequent comment muddies the waters. Here’s the rule entire, Rule 4.05(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. Until a batted ball passes a coach, a coach is not permitted to position himself closer to home plate than the coach’s box nor closer to fair territory than the coach’s box. Otherwise, a coach shall not be considered out of the box unless the opposing manager complains, in which case 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.

OK, if he leaves the box, he’s ejected … except that he can leave the box, as long as the ball has passed him and he doesn’t interfere with the play.

I thought the comments were supposed to clarify the rules, not contradict them.

This is a chronic problem with the MLB rulebook. They’ll take the trouble to add what should be a helpful comment, without noticing (or without caring) that the actual rule itself is absolute. If you don’t want the rule to mean “at all times,” then rewrite the rule.

The murk doesn’t end there. Look at that last sentence of the comment again, about a coach leaving the box: “This may be allowed if the coach does not interfere with the play in any manner.” It may be allowed? Does that mean the umpire can penalize the coach even if he doesn’t interfere with the play? That couldn’t be the intent of the framers, could it? But that’s the literal meaning.

Writing rules can be hard. But it’s not hard to know the difference between “may” and “shall,” and to use the word that means what you want to say about that situation. There’s just no reason for such vague wording, except sloppiness.

Getting back to the play in question: Given the state of the rule, I can’t say that the umps were wrong to let it go. But suppose Nate McLouth had been confused by Gallego’s presence on the foul line as he looked towards home to make the throw. After all, there’s not supposed to be a guy in an Oakland uniform in that spot. Now, I don’t think that actually happened; by the time McLouth came up with the ball, Gallego had backed off a couple of steps from the foul line and wasn’t in McLouth’s direct line of sight towards the plate.

But it could have happened, no? If McLouth had come up with the ball a half-second sooner, Gallego would have been standing right on the foul line just as McLouth was lining up his throw. He’s looking for the runner, and he sees this other white-gold-and-green uniform 15 feet north of the bag. He double-clutches, and the runner scores.

What then? Would that constitute interference? It would meet the practical definition, clearly, but would it satisfy the rulebook? Would any ump have seen it just right to make the call? It would be a whirlwind of confusion.

There’s a simple way to avoid such muddles: (1) Decide how much range you want to allow the coach. (2) Paint the box that size, and keep the coach in the box. At all times.

3.5 2 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

45 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Aaron
Aaron
10 years ago

Are there any other rules detailing penalties for coach interference? Seems like, under this rule, the worst case for Oakland here is that the coach would have been ejected after the play. Since the play ended the game, it’s rather a moot point.
It certainly does /feel/ wrong, but with or without the comment, this particular rule doesn’t seem to give the Orioles any relief.

mosc
mosc
10 years ago
Reply to  Aaron

I agree. The rule is written such that the umpires have latitude to be lax. If either manager complains, they can then institute a more rigid rule structure. And I agree that as long as there is no interference, the worst penalty is ejection nothing game related.

So basically if the O’s had a problem with it they could ask for the coaches to stay in their boxes, maybe eject the guy. However I don’t think they had justification even for that.

Doug
Editor
10 years ago

In the Angel/Mariner game on Friday, the Mariners’ Justin Smoak was thrown out at the plate in a bang-bang play, just missing getting his foot on the plate before the tag was applied. The 3rd base coach had positioned himself to get a better view of the play before signaling to Smoak to go home. In doing so (getting a better look at the play), the coach put himself in Smoak’s path, and Justin clearly had to slow up momentarily to avoid a collision, the difference between being safe and out. That much being said, the play I’m referring to… Read more »

Justin C
1 year ago
Reply to  John Autin

There is an ‘absolute boundary’ for the base coaches…its makes clearly and its called “Foul Territory”.
Imo, as long as the coach does not interfere with the play, they should be given free reign.

RJ
RJ
10 years ago

For what it’s worth, I’ve seen the Giants’ Tim Flannery run practically all the way to home plate on certain plays, whirling his arm as he goes,

Mike
Mike
10 years ago

I’m an atty & this rule is confusing at best. It looks like an old rule with a modern commentary added, except the commentary became part of the rule (which shouldn’t have happened; it should have been a separate comment on use).

My paraphrase: Coaches have to stay in the box, but if they don’t, we’re not going to enforce the rule unless someone complains or it becomes a problem.

Chuck
Chuck
10 years ago

But it could have happened, no? No. McLouth is looking for his own uniforms, and knows where he is throwing BEFORE he fields the ball. The opponents uniform he probably doesn’t even see. Maybe a high school player could be confused, but not a player at the ML level. What then? Would that constitute interference? Of course not, how could it be? Unless Gallego physically touched either the runner or defender, there can’t be interference. It would meet the practical definition, clearly, but would it satisfy the rulebook? It does not. Would any ump have seen it just right to… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
10 years ago

Maybe, but nothing short of touching a runner/fielder can be called interference.

A coach intentionally placing himself in such a position to decoy a fielder into making a bad throw could never be proven because Showalter or Melvin couldn’t protest the play because it is a judgement call.

Joe
Joe
10 years ago
Reply to  Chuck

That’s not true; there is no “touching” requirement for interference to be called. Wikipedia even lists this specific case and how it could be called interference.

“A member of the offensive team stands near a base to impersonate a baserunner or to otherwise confuse or hinder the defense”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interference_(baseball)

Now, I don’t think the intent was to hinder the defense, but is is certainly possible without physical contact.

Dan McCloskey
Editor
10 years ago

Possible rules that could apply here that would involve possible in-game penalties (as opposed to an ejection): 7.09 It is interference by a batter or a runner when— (d) Any member or members of the offensive team stand or gather around any base to which a runner is advancing, to confuse, hinder or add to the difficulty of the fielders. Such runner shall be declared out for the interference of his teammate or teammates; (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… Read more »

Dan McCloskey
Editor
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I hear you, John. I basically agree that eliminating gray area in rules can make an official’s life easier, but sometimes it’s a little more difficult than that. There needs to be some limit on where the coaches can roam, but if you want the rule strictly enforced, it’s another thing the umpires have to watch when maybe they should be watching something else. Not to get all tangential here, but your tennis example reminds me of something. I have a problem with the attitude (usually we hear it in basketball and football) that an official can’t let a game… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

“It’s impossible to eliminate all judgment calls”

Wouldn’t eliminating a judgement call in itself be a judgement call?

Let’s worry about enforcing the strike zone first before we start worrying about things that don’t impact the game or the pace of play like coaching boxes.

mosc
mosc
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

You must not be an NBA fan. In addition to the much pointed out traveling non-calls that are fairly commonplace, there is also a complete lack of willingness to call palming (never seen it in an NBA game, ever) and line violations regarding inbounding and foul shooting. If you watch any NBA game this post season, almost any foul shot (certainly most over the course of a game) you will see both teams cross into the lane prior to the shot leaving the hands of the shooter. Inbounding rules are fairly complicated to explain but they are mostly ignored. I… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago
Reply to  mosc

I agree with your general sentiment regarding the main topic here. But the NBA’s not as bad as you’re making it out to be. They DID make the “Crab Dribble” (popularized by Lebron James where you dribble back and forth and palm the ball high above the ground in order to fake out the defender) illegal a couple of years ago. And I see lane violations called all the time. And as for being lax on the literal definition of traveling with the ball, that’s been part of the culture of the league for decades, and it’s not going away.… Read more »

Chuck
Chuck
10 years ago

“A member of the offensive team stands near a base to impersonate a baserunner or to otherwise confuse or hinder the defense”

The rules cited in the Wikipedia example are 7.08 b & g, and 7.09, which refer to baserunners, and this is true.

The example in question is a base coach, so the it does not apply.

Doug
Doug
10 years ago

A thought on the coaches box rule. Coaches are able to move about as they please provided they remain in foul ground. However, should they be out of the box and interfere with a play or fielder, whether intentionally or not, then the umpire shall call interference and declare outs and\or position runners as the umpire shall determine would have resulted but for the interference. Same would apply for if the coach is in the box and the umpire determines that the interference was intentional or that coach did not make a reasinable effort to avoid interfering with the play… Read more »

e pluribus munu
e pluribus munu
10 years ago

Actually, I think Rule 4.05(b) is stupid-looking, but artful. Assuming that 4.05(b) was originally a response to intentional interference by coaches in baseball’s early days (perhaps in Baltimore), you need to find a way to exclude intentional interference. But in the heat of play, coaches, being people, get excited – they have an important task to perform and to misperform. They can’t perform it while looking down at lines, so they *are* going to step over the lines – Serena Williams did not make her foot fault while racing around the court in excitement and concentration – coaches will make… Read more »

bstar
bstar
10 years ago

Great stuff, epm!

Timmy Pea
Timmy Pea
10 years ago

Pierre moves into the NL lead in stolen bases with 8.

Evil Squirrel
10 years ago

Base coaches seem to rarely be inside the box even when there are no runners on base. I remember during McGwire’s first few years in St. Louis, third base coach Rene Lachemann would stand halfway down the left field line when Big Mac would bat. The announcers would occasionally point out how Lachemann was in clear violation of the rules regarding base coaches, but as far as I can recall, nobody ever called him on it. And since base coaches are almost never called on their their actions before and during a play, the “rules” as posted here are essentially… Read more »

topper009
topper009
10 years ago

Also a base coach slapping hands with a guy rounding the bases after a HR is ignored. I think this rule may be intentionally ambiguous since it deals with potential interference which is totally a judgement call. If you actaully kept the base coach in the box then the taems with the 3rd abse dugout would have an advantage. The reason the coach moves down the line is to wait as long as possible to make the send call, basically waiting for a bobble or missed cutoff etc. If he had to stay in the box then the manager or… Read more »

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I found P Scott Karl (triple) and C Mike Matheny (HR) on 8/25/98.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago

JA: I guess I misunderstood your question. I thought you were looking for a pitcher and a catcher who combined for a triple and a HR.

topper009
topper009
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

May 29, 1972

Boomer Scott
Billy Conigliario (who had 2 dingers, the family tradition in your most famous game)

April 14, 2001
Ronnie Belliard
Jeromy Burnitz (half of the exclusive club: 3 HRs by teammates in the same game with Richie Sexson

Lawrence Azrin
Lawrence Azrin
10 years ago
Reply to  topper009

The coaching boxes seem to have first been implemented in the late 1880’s, in response to certain 1st/3rd base coaches (notably Arlie Latham) running down the baseline yelling/trying to distract the pitcher as he went into his windup. That was one of many loopholes in the rules that needed to be fixed. For instance, until 1887 batters were not awarded first base for being hit by a pitch; the ball was just considered “dead”. Until Germany Schaefer “stole” first base (from 2nd base) c. 1908, there was no rule against that. Batters were only awarded as many bases as needed… Read more »

Ed
Ed
10 years ago

The Indians set a team record tonight with 7 home runs in a home game. They’ve never done that before. Twice they’ve hit 8 in a road game and once 7.

Ryan Raburn hit two of the Indians’ home runs tonight, making it his second straight multi homer game. Not sure who the last Indian to do that was.

Richard Chester
Richard Chester
10 years ago
Reply to  Ed

Travis Hafner did it on 7/19/2004 and 7/20/2004. Other Indians who did it were Thome, Ramirez, Matt Williams, Belle, Glenallen Hill, Joe Carter, Duke Sims, Doby and Easter

Ed
Ed
10 years ago

Thanks as always Richard!

Timmy Pea
Timmy Pea
10 years ago

I generally agree with John Autin’s assessment and his irritation of the inconsistency of the rule vs. the comment to the rule. But his vociferousness on the issue would lead me to believe he had a dog in this fight. I had to recheck who was playing this game to see if it was the Met’s that jobbed by a bad rule.

Alan
Alan
10 years ago
Reply to  Timmy Pea

(Nice Lou Rawls pic, by the way)

As for John’s vociferousness, I can tell you, my old pal is just an advocate of what is Fair and True. That’s why I call JA (whose middle initial is L) by his alternate name: Justice League of America.

Now, having said that, I completely agree with you, J. It’s ridiculous how irrelevant the painted lines of the coaching box are. Why have them at all if no one has to stand in them? Let’s just make the box bigger and, for a novelty, require that it be occupied!

Timmy Pea
Timmy Pea
10 years ago
Reply to  Alan

I don’t doubt for a minute that John wants fairness for everyone.

oneblankspace
oneblankspace
10 years ago

While we’re at it, there is a rule or comment that every major league ballpark built for a professional club after June 1, 1958, should be at least 400 feet to the centerfield fence and 325 feet down the lines.

Of course, they forgot about that rule when they built the Phone Booth of The West.

Timmy Pea
Timmy Pea
10 years ago
Reply to  oneblankspace

Which park is that? The one in San Fran?

Timmy Pea
Timmy Pea
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

You have to admit, SF has become the baseball jewel of the west coast. They have the best crowds, they’ve been winning for several years now, and you can bump into the best interior decorator north of San Mateo at any given home game. You gotta give it to them, they love the team and they play well.

Alan
Alan
10 years ago
Reply to  John Autin

I was assuming oneblankspace was referring to Petco in San Diego. Isn’t that considered a hitters’ park? As for that website you linked to John, I notice the little green field diagram does not always match the listed dimensions, so I had to read them carefully.

Hartvig
Hartvig
10 years ago
Reply to  Alan

According to a recent article at sbrforum.com AT&T in San Francisco just edges out Safeco in Seattle and Petco for the best pitchers park in baseball.