Kinda what I figgered, thanks.

[QUOTE=mbyron;765986]Throwing to a base where a runner will be has been ruled a "play" in both NCAA and FED, even when that base is an award. There's even a caseplay for this in FED regarding a BR who just received a base on balls - throw to first is interfered with - and is considered interference.

The throw doesn't necessarily have to be to RETIRE a runner, but could also be to prevent further action by a runner. Also - if you forget that PU was vociferous out of the gate, that throw did, in fact, go errant and gave R another base. If the interference existed ... it certainly could have been the cause of R going to 3rd.

The RULING was correct. I do think that if we gather 4 NCAA umpires and ask them to make a ruling on a situation, we can rest assured they will make the correct ruling. No need to roll eyes at that. This isn't PeeWee where umpire knowledge is suspect. You may say that the CALL was incorrect ... and I might even agree... but the call was MADE - the only thing the gathering could really discuss was the proper RULING on that call.

Protest denied. This statement is incorrect. Thank you for your donation, and turn in your NCAA umpire card at the door. (PS - I'm done trying to convince you ... but please try to find an NCAA rule to support just the statement you've made here ... not whether the play SHOULD HAVE been interference ... but that it "cannot be interference because the catcher could not have been making 'a play to retire a runner'".)

REALLY? You don't think R1 could be put out if he passed the base and F6 had the ball? No wonder you are completely misunderstanding the situation.

1. Yes, obviously.
2. YES (wrong guess) - which is the ONLY reason interference is a possibility.

Ask the PU if it was intentional. If / when he says "no" then protest that interference by a runner must be intentional.

Does anyone else remember a pro game where the catcher throw down on a full count pitch which was ruled ball four, and the runner from first overslid second base and was tagged out? Seems to me if that batter had interfered with the throw he was subject being called for interference....

JJ

A good point, one that appears lost on Mike above in his seal to defend the indefensible.

But that didn't happen here, John. R1 had not yet reached second, a base to which he was entitled without liability to be put out.

What would you protest. Here is the rule reference.

NCAA
Rule 2
Interference
SECTION 50. The act of an offensive player, umpire or nongame person who
interferes with; physically or verbally hinders; confuses; or impedes any fielder
attempting to make a play.

A.R. 2—If the batter-runner has not touched first base at the time of interference, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch. If there was an intervening play made on another runner, all runners shall return to the base last touched at the time of interference.

Rule 7
When Batter or Batter-Runner Is Out
SECTION 11. A batter is out when
f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or *throwing* by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;

The rules don't support your claim. If F2 is throwing to F1 on ball 4 and the (B or B-R)'s interference allows R1 to advance to third will you allow the advance? By your interpretation, you'd have to.

Exactly the same as the play he's referencing. R1 had not reached 2nd yet when F2 made that throw either. EXACTLY the same scenario.

I have posted the rule above. On a 3-2 pitch with the runner running, the catcher cannot attempt to retire r1? He does not no the status of the pitch when he attempts to retire the runner. Suppose the b-r actually does interfere with the throw and that allows r1 to advance to third, will you allow that advance?

Can you cite the rule or just the "esteemed rules guru." This is an unusual play when many rules some at odds with others come into play. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

No, because in your scenario here, that would have to be, as Bob stated, INtentional interference.

Seriously?

What makes this call, in particular unacceptable. What kind of mistakes fall into the acceptable and unacceptable categories for you? Does it depend on the level, situation, etc.

So you are for having judgment calls overturned. Suppose you miss a strike and the other three guys think it was a ball and you called it a strike, is it unacceptable for them to sustain that call? Does it matter the situation. Is it possible that the discussion was to insure that they got the ruling correct on the placement of the runners?

No it doesn't. Please re-read the rule I posted. This is an NCAA game played under NCAA rules.

f. The batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s
fielding or *throwing* by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any
other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;