|
Fri Apr 22, 2005, 12:18pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Here's a copy of a post I put up at McGriff's:
A friend pointed me to a thread where my name came up. Last night, I emailed Jim Paronto, and this morning in two additional emails, we came to an agreement on a play that may have plagued some umpires. BTW: He is the Secretary-Editor of the NCAA Rule Book, which in their parlance, means he is the official interpreter for that set of rules. Here's the play I sent to Jim. (It may not coincide with a play posted here, but it served as a platform for discussion.) ----- Play: R2 tries to score on a short single. The throw is in time, but the catcher fumbles the ball and drops it near the foul line. He is "clearly without possession of the ball" (NCAA 8-7b) and directly in the runner's base path to the plate. Now, in the judgment of the umpire, R2 collides flagrantly with the catcher. The A.R. says: Enforce the obstruction (score the run) and eject the runner. Ruling: Am I reading this play right? ----- Paronto: Very good play. The obstruction rule was revised to cover situations where the fielder had not received the ball and was blocking the base prior to the fielder catching the ball. Your "what if" type play is one that I would almost have to see, but let's take a stab at it. Would you rule the fielder, who dropped the ball, would have the same protection as the fielder who misplays a batted ground ball but can immediately recover? In this instance, is the runner guilty of interference? Is the fielder afforded the same protection on a thrown ball as he is on a batted ball? In the play you described, without any interference, I would hesitate in calling obstruction. I would be more inclined to rule a flagrant slide and call the runner out and eject. But, without seeing the play, that might be too drastic. My rationale is the ball was there in time for obstruction not to be called. Because the fielder is clumsy, do we doubly penalize him? Your thoughts? ----- My thoughts: According to black letter law, it appears to be obstruction (the catcher ain't got the ball) and flagrant collision (safe him, eject him). A fielder is not accorded the same luxury when he bobbles a throw as he is when he bobbles a batted ball. At least, that's what the OBR experts hold. But Rick Roder also points out that the fielder can't simply disappear. That's the case with "my" catcher. Still, the defense had its chance - and screwed up. Benefit of the doubt, then, goes to the runner. So.... In my play: (1) The contact is unavoidable: The catcher in the base path is reaching down to pick up the ball. So the runner is not guilty of interference. The ball remains alive, and what you see is what you get. If the runner is safe, "Safe!" If he gets tagged in advance of the plate, "He's out!" (2) Though the contact is unavoidable (hence 8-7 Penalty does not apply), it is still flagrant (8-7 AR 3), and R2's gotta go. Result: "Safe!" "You're gone!" OR "Out!" "You're gone!" What do you think? (grin) ----- Paronto: In your play, we have a "tangle, untangle" situation. I agree with you. If he is tagged, "Out and ejected"; or not tagged, "safe and ejected." The ejection comes because of the flagrant slide. I also agree with you and Rick that a batted ball protection is different from that accorded a fielder who is fielding a thrown ball. Do you agree with the above? ----- Me: It seems so. "Tangle, untangle": Cute description that we don't use in the Southwest. I'll make use of it from now on, you bet. We're agreed, my friend. It has been very quiet on the NCAA front around here. I trust that same benign atmosphere pervades all of your venues. ----- I hope this has been os some help. I am posting it also to The Forum. You're welcome to stop by anytime. 
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
