Texas - ASU game 3

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

Kinda what I figgered, thanks.

[MD Longhorn]

[QUOTE=mbyron;765986]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.[\QUOTE]

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.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

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.

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.

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'".)

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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)?

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

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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

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

[JJ]

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

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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

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

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by JJ

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

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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 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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

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.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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!

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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.

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

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

...This was a 3rd trimester abortion and totally inexcusable in a Super Regional game.

Seriously?

Originally Posted by UMP25

We all have made mistakes, myself included, but to make one like this, which was totally avoidable, is unacceptable.

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.

Originally Posted by UMP25

The call itself was bad enough, but to have all 4 guys get together and sustain the bad call? Completely unacceptable.

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?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

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;