+1

When I can.

That's not the point. This was a 3rd trimester abortion and totally inexcusable in a Super Regional game. We all have made mistakes, myself included, but to make one like this, which was totally avoidable, is unacceptable. The call itself was bad enough, but to have all 4 guys get together and sustain the bad call? Completely unacceptable.

The huddle wasn't going to change this. Taking that long to figure out what to do in the case of interference was a bit embarrassing. But once PU declares interference, the result was actually the correct result.

While I didn't see interference, I'm not quite sure what the other umpires could have done. Given that it was called, I think the correct ruling was made (BR out, R1 returns).

Maybe (and this is pure speculation, I admit), PU has the BR timing his movement across the plate to get in F2's way ==> intentional interference with a throw.

Until (and If) something comes out from NCAA, I don't know that we'll know what happened and whether it was just judgment, or a rule, or what.

One cannot have batter interference on a catcher's throw to retire R1 when R1 cannot be retired due to the batter receiving a base on balls. I'm willing to bet the PU forgot that it was a walk and instead instinctively ruled a batter's interference here, which it wasn't. Because it wasn't, the little umpire crew confab should have reversed it and ruled that no interference actually occurred.

Rule site? (You are right that it's not "batter" interference ... it's just interference) You can absolutely have interference on exactly this play - and if you couldn't, coach could have protested - which he didn't do.

Little umpire crew confabs are not designed to overturn judgement calls.

But they should overturn misapplied rulings, of which this was one.

I'm well aware of batter-runner interference, which this was not, either. This was simply a PU brain fart that should have been corrected. If I was the offensive team head coach, I would have protested.

What do you base this assertion on? Yes, if there was a misapplied ruling, they should and WOULD fix it. The fact that they didn't is evidence that it was not a misapplied ruling. Maybe you, or I, or 90% of the umpires here wouldn't have called interference on the BR - but this PU did.

And when PU said, "I judged interference on the BR", what exactly would you be basing your protest on?

Mike, I think his point was the same as mine earlier on: although in general you can have runner INT by the BR (nobody disputes that), in this case there was no play possible on R1, who was advancing on the BR's award.

To put it differently: what exactly did the BR hinder by his actions? Don't say a throw: it needs to be a throw that is part of defense, i.e. a throw that is part of retiring a runner. We don't have one here.

So just because all 4 guys uphold an incorrect ruling that ruling must have been correct? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

On the fact that there couldn't be interference on this play because the catcher could not have been making a play to retire a runner if said runner could not have been liable to have been put out; he had the base free and clear due to the walk.

That happens to be what an esteemed rules guru said to me when I asked him about this. R1 was never in jeopardy of being put out due to the batter's base on balls. Consequently, no play to retire him was possible. As a result, the catcher could not have been hindered or impeded in his attempt to retire a runner if said runner was "unretirable."

The lengths to which some people here go to defend the indefensible never ceases to amaze me. How dare anyone criticize a CWS or Super Regional or Regional umpire!

questions;
1. If R1 passes 2B, is he liable for putout if F6 happens to be holding the ball?
2. Does that sort of possibility matter for this play (I'm guessing not)?

I would start this discussion by simply posting the NCAA definition of interference found in rule 2 and base your arguments for or against on that. If you are looking for a true discussion and growth, start there.

Not in this case. If it did, then theoretically, every runner is still at liability to be put out at all times.