Before everybody thinks they're going to start calling this in their high school or travel ball games, please be aware that this is an NCAA college rule ONLY!
Here is the actual rule:
12.3.1 Offensive team personnel, other than base coaches and runners, shall not touch a batter or base runner(s) legally running the bases on a dead-ball base award until the player(s) contacts home plate.
EFFECT: For a first offense in a game, the umpire shall issue a warning to the offending team. For a second offense, the ball is dead, and the runner is out and credited with the last base legally touched at the time of the interference. Each other base runner must return to the last base legally touched at the time of the interference.
Also of note, this rule is a completely different rule than the one about a base coach assisting a runner to run the bases during a live ball. The rule about coaches interference for assisting a runner during a live ball play is pretty much identical at all levels of the game. This rule applies ONLY to bases being run on a dead ball base award.
On a dead ball base award, a base coach can high five the runner, give her a hug or dance a jig with the player- there is no penalty. This is a commonly confused rule that some players and coaches- and, unfortunately, some umpires- try to enforce when a coach congratulates a runner on a home run. That is not illegal!
On a live ball, even if a coach touches a runner it isn't automatically illegal if the touch is not interpreted by the umpire as "assisiting" the runner to run the bases. "Assisting" would be holding the runner to stop them from advancing, pushing them toward the next base, or helping them up off the ground if they had tripped. If the runner has stopped on the bag and is making no attempt to advance, giving them a high five would not be a violation of the coach's interference rule.
NCAA added the rule about "offensive team personnel" touching the runner several years ago. This was in reaction to the typical mob scene you sometimes see around the plate when a player hits a home run. If the players crowd around the runner, it can be impossible for the umpire to see if the runner touches the plate. This also makes it impossible for the umpire to rule an appeal by the defense that the runner missed the plate.
The NCAA rule book is filled with odd little rules like this, and that is a reflection that in college ball the game more or less "belongs" to the coaches. Most of these odd rules came about because of some incident in a game where a coach felt slighted, complained and cried about it, and lobbied to add a rule to address it.
Witness the new NCAA rule requiring the pitching lane to be marked on the field.
A couple of years ago, there was an issue in a game with a substitution not being properly recorded on the lineup card. Arizona coach Mike Candrea protested the change and had the winning run taken off the board. There was a ruckus about that one and the next year the NCAA had a new rule about how changes must be reported to the umpires and scorekeeper.
Same with the "no touching" rule. There was a game where a player hit a home run, was mobbed at the plate, and the defensive team appealed that the plate had not been touched. Not being able to rule on the appeal, because they could not see the plate, the umpires had no choice but to rule the runner safe.
This set off the now familiar NCAA rule change process: Coach feels that team was done an injustice and cries about it to the rules committee and BINGO, you have a new rule that team members can't touch the runner on a dead ball base award.
On the game in question, I don't see how you can come to any conclusion other than the umpires blew this call. I can't see the penalty being anything other than a "warning" (assuming that no such warnings had been issued prior in the game). That this was a "game ending" play should make no difference, as the rule makes no provision for what point of the game the infraction might occur. This is a rule that if you're going to be working an NCAA game you should know!
I can't fault a coach for trying to get a rule enforced (even if she had the rule wrong). I do find part of her explanation kind of fishy. From the article: "The warning is down much farther (in the rule book) and I wasn't aware of the warning until much later," Musgjerd said.
Baloney. The "EFFECT" and penalty appear directly below and as part of the rule, exactly as copied and pasted above directly from the NCAA rule book.
I do fault the offensive team's coach for not immediately filing a protest. If she knew the rule- and the NCAA protest procedure- she could have protested this on the spot and had the call reversed. That she did not cost her team the victory.
Again, unless you're playing college ball, this rule has no effect on your games. My fear is that with the publicity this has gotten, umpires can expect to hear coaches crying for this rule to be enforced at lower levels this year and you'll probably see a few umpires incorrectly trying to enforce it.
