The vision of Papelbon standing on the mound, looking at an uncovered second base while Carlos Quentin, representing the tying run, scooted in safely, kind of encapsulates the Red Sox' season for me.

If Matt Capps gets credit for a save in the Twins game...

Papelbon pretty much has to be traded in the off-season, right?

Wow, it never occurred to me that the White Sox could sweep the Red Sox at Fenway. Your guys need to quit doggin' it.

I don't think I've ever seen a play like the one that ended the Twins/Rangers game.

I hope this stretch of play continues. A real race with two teams playing good baseball with only one advancing would be a nice way to close out the season. I'm not sure we'll get it anywhere else around the league.

The vision of Papelbon standing on the mound, looking at an uncovered second base while Carlos Quentin, representing the tying run, scooted in safely, kind of encapsulates the Red Sox' season for me.

That doesn't even really scratch the surface of the boneheaded defensive plays they've been making...

I would prefer that both teams continue to play this way and the Yankees go into a 10 game skid.

Interference of the runner by the third base coach? I didn't know that was possible. WTF?

9 comments, and just 1 on the most bizarre ending to a game all year???

I count two, but yeah.

Interference of the runner by the third base coach? I didn't know that was possible. WTF?

Makes perfect sense to me. Third base coaches would be much more physical in preventing runners from going home if there weren't a rule against it.

I'm wondering if the interference call is a just a play that

a) never happens; or

b) is never called.

I ask because I randomly came across this play: (http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=11140521) and the Padres third base coach clearly touches the runner before he runs home to score the run. It's not egregious at all--he gives him a congratulatory slap on the back--but, then again, in this MIN-TEX game, the Rangers coach barely touches the runner at all.

I think for the rule to count, the ball has to be live. It's also only supposed to be called if the third base coach specifically affects the runner. This graze wasn't anything to call him out on.

It doesn't seem like the umpire understood the rule at all. Even if you accept everything that Gardenhire said, shouldn't he have been safe?

The rule specifically prohibits the coach from "physically assist[ing]" the runner: 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 not prohibit the coach from merely touching the runner. Yet after the game, crew chief Tim Tschida said, "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." That's not correct; there's no "either" about it. The runner is only out if he has been physically assisted.

Gardenhire doesn't seem to understand the rule either: "They made contact at third base. That's automatic," Gardenhire said, citing replays as evidence. "The umpire has to make a call. If there is contact, he's got to make a call. That's what he did. And they made contact. Unfortunate, yes. It probably didn't help him stop or get back, but contact is contact." But if it didn't help him stop or get back, then there should have been no call.

It sure seems to me like the Rangers have legitimate grounds for a protest here. If either Tschida or Gardenhire said that the coach's actions helped Young stop and get back to the bag, it would become a judgment call. But that's not what anyone is claiming. What they're claiming is something that's not in the rule book.

"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." That's not correct; there's no "either" about it. The runner is only out if he has been physically assisted.

I'm going to have to question the transcription and/or interpretation of that quote. He doesn't seem to be making much of an either/or statement there or any sort, the quote is kind of bizarre and sounds misheard or misspoken by Tschida.

From having heard of this rule (and I could have sworn we saw it once already this year, recently, too), if there is contact there, the assumption has to be that it is an attempt to assist the runner, because the defense otherwise is "hey, it was an accident, I didn't MEAN to help him." I think this is why I've heard it said like that by announcers and formerly players as well: If there's contact, you're out, that's pretty much accepted because giving someone the benefit of the doubt there just can't happen.

Lastly, to me, it looks like it DID assist him in stopping and returning to third, which I'm sure is why the umpire made the call, so I do find myself thinking the Rangers don't have grounds for a protest.

Lastly, to me, it looks like it DID assist him in stopping and returning to third, which I'm sure is why the umpire made the call, so I do find myself thinking the Rangers don't have grounds for a protest.

It could well be that the accepted ruling is that any contact, incidental or not, means the batter is out, but this is pretty clearly wrong. Young was putting on the brakes before his hand brushed against the coach. There was no way he was assisted in any way.

I agree with Lassus. It wasn't as if Young inadvertently brushed him rounding third; the contact happened as the coach was trying to get Young back to third. No, he wasn't picking Young up and trying to carry him back to third, ala Perry and Payton. But the contact was part of his attempt to get Young momentum and attention back to third.

the contact happened as the coach was trying to get Young back to third

So? The coach is allowed to yell and wave his arms as much as he wants. Their hands brushed together - the contact didn't help Young change his momentum, or increase his speed. Young was already in the process of returning to the base; there's no way the incidental contact helped him do so.

The only way that the call is correct is if Tschida and Gardenhire are right, and the accepted ruling is no judgment call - any contact means the batter is out.

Does anyone else think the rule should include incidental contact as being an automatic out? There is no reason for a third base coach to touch the runner during a live player - whether assisting him or not - and having any contact ruled as an automatic out would eliminate the need for judgement calls about whether a coach was "assisting" a runner.

Does anyone else think the rule should include incidental contact as being an automatic out?

It's so tough to say. I mean, we're looking at a rule that *needs* to exist--we obviously can't have third base coaches physically grabbing players who run through a stop sign--but, in order to enforce it, it seems we'd need to penalize both incidental and intentional contact...even if we all agree that incidental contact should be fine.

It reminds me of this basketball play, actually:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB8KtMOnGvY

Basketball has a rule that if a coach goes on the court and touches a player on the other team, he gets called for a technical. This is a no-brainer...we can't have a coach run out on the court and tackle a player oh his way to a break-away layup.

In the linked play, Jason Kidd is dribbling up the court, and sees that the opposing coach is standing about six inches inside the court--he wandered out of his chair to shout instructions to his team. Kidd promptly dribbles right at the Coach and--while the Coach is still on the court--Kidd reaches out his arm and grazes his chest.

What can you do?

Does anyone else think the rule should include incidental contact as being an automatic out? There is no reason for a third base coach to touch the runner during a live player - whether assisting him or not - and having any contact ruled as an automatic out would eliminate the need for judgement calls about whether a coach was "assisting" a runner.

I'd agree with you that the rule being written this way would save confusion, but the rule above is not written that way. I'd have to agree that the Rangers have grounds for protest.

Kidd promptly dribbles right at the Coach and--while the Coach is still on the court--Kidd reaches out his arm and grazes his chest.

What can you do?

Stay off the court?

So? The coach is allowed to yell and wave his arms as much as he wants. Their hands brushed together - the contact didn't help Young change his momentum, or increase his speed. Young was already in the process of returning to the base; there's no way the incidental contact helped him do so.

The only way that the call is correct is if Tschida and Gardenhire are right, and the accepted ruling is no judgment call - any contact means the batter is out.

The contact probably didn't help, but in that situation, I think there is a presumption that it does help unless it obviously doesn't help. The coach is trying to get him to stop running and return to third, but knows he can't physically touch him or risk getting him called out, so he has to act in a way that keeps himself out of the way. The runner has to get back to third and knows that he can't push off the coach to do so, or collide with the coach in a way that hurts his chances either. They both need to be as trying to avoid contact. If the ump sees any contact which he's not absolutely certain didn't help, he's got to make the call. It's not so much about the rule not mentioning incidental contact...it's that both people should be committed to not making incidental contact, so the presumption is that contact is an attempt to help unless it is obviously unhelpful. I think an ump could make the case that on that play, a play that close, where both the coach and player should be avoiding each other like the plague, but do touch, any contact should be considered as being an attempt to help, and therefore it is "automatic". Maybe that's not a pure textbook "automatic" in all cases, but in a case of it happening on a bang-bang play, it is automatic, because the ump can't know that it didn't help in some small way.