Dropped 3rd strike verbal interference call

[Gmomma]

The situation was bases loaded with 1 out. Catcher dropped 3rd strike. Immediately the third base coach told player to run which she did. This caused confusion on catcher's part and she threw to first which was an errant throw. 2 runs scored. The umpire called the runner to first out and let one run score and sent the other runner back to third. He called coach verbal intereference because he was telling the girl to run, it prompted the throw from catcher to 1st. Is there such a verbal interference rule?

[GIMNEPIWO]

Not sure what Rule Set you are asking about, but NFHS:

Interference ( Offense )
2:32:1 Interference is an act ( physical or verbal ) by a member of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder, or when ....

[Gmomma]

Thanks for the response and the ruling:)

[GIMNEPIWO]

Not sure what Rule Set you are asking about, but NFHS:

Interference ( Offense )
2:32:1 Interference is an act ( physical or verbal ) by a memeber of the team at bat who illegally impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder, or when ....

Unless you are talking about very young players any catcher that gets "confused" by a coach yelling run deserves the results described, minus the runners being returned.

G, does his scenario fit under the rule you quoted or can you describe a situation where a player or coach verbally interferes with another player?

The OP didn't ask if I thought this was INT or would fit the rule ... She asked if there is a such a rule ... ... No, I would not have made the call 'as described' by the OP ... As described, I have a DMC ... I may have INT if the OC was yelling at the catcher to 'throw to first' and the players were young ... I would have verbal INT if the 3rd Base coach was doing an A-Rod ( I got it I got it ) to a fielder parked under a fly ball etc. ...

[GIMNEPIWO]

And the OP didn't ask ... But if the Blue did have INT, runners should have been returned to the last base touched at the time of the INT ... The BR was out by strike out ( correct ), but allowing all runners to advance one base is not correct if he had INT ... Had INT not been called all runners can advance at their own risk as many bases as they can get ( unless local REC rules supercede ) ...

[Comp]

As has already been stated, yes you can have verbal interference. That being said, if the umpire did call it verbal interference on the coach he completely messed up the penalty. Ball is dead immediately, all runners return to last base occupied at the time of the interference. How can a run score? Not only that, if it is interference on the coach, the runner closest to home is called out, not the runner at 1st.

[GIMNEPIWO]

As has already been stated, yes you can have verbal interference. That being said, if the umpire did call it verbal interference on the coach he completely messed up the penalty. Ball is dead immediately, all runners return to last base occupied at the time of the interference. How can a run score? Not only that, if it is interference on the coach, the runner closest to home is called out, not the runner at 1st.

The OP said ' the runner to first ' not ' the runner at first ' being called out ... so I took that to mean the BR not R3 ... And the BR was out by strike out ... I was just logging back on to add the runner closest to home should have been out, but you beat me to it ...

[MTR]

The situation was bases loaded with 1 out. Catcher dropped 3rd strike. Immediately the third base coach told player to run which she did. This caused confusion on catcher's part and she threw to first which was an errant throw. 2 runs scored. The umpire called the runner to first out and let one run score and sent the other runner back to third. He called coach verbal intereference because he was telling the girl to run, it prompted the throw from catcher to 1st. Is there such a verbal interference rule?

Speaking ASA, NFHS, ISF, NCAA, etc.

This is nothing, but a DMC regardless of age or level.

[Fredegar]

For the record, the ASA rulebook doesn't specify the word "verbal" as NFHS apparently does.

Rule 1 - Definitions
Interference: The act of an offensive player, or team member, umpire, or spectator, that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

Even though it doesn't specifically mention the word "verbal", you may get different opinions from umpires on what constitutes "confusion".

[UmpSteve]

For the record, the ASA rulebook doesn't specify the word "verbal" as NFHS apparently does.

Rule 1 - Definitions
Interference: The act of an offensive player, or team member, umpire, or spectator, that impedes, hinders, or confuses a defensive player attempting to execute a play. Contact is not necessary.

Even though it doesn't specifically mention the word "verbal", you may get different opinions from umpires on what constitutes "confusion".

Suggest you also refer to the RS#33 Interference, which DOES specifically mention "verbal".

There is also a definition of coaches' interference; and that DOESN'T include verbalizing instructions to runners, even if that instruction might lead the defense to do something stupid. The defensive team's coaches have the responsibility to COACH their team, including telling their catcher when the dropped third strike rule applies and when it doesn't.