The fact that you do not realize batter interference is a "delayed dead ball" situation precludes you from any further discussion in this thread. Please learn the rules before attempting to chide someone who does.

I love how you continually say, "This is not batter's interference" when no one else is arguing that it is. I love how even after it's been established, ad nauseum, that this is not batter interference, you then chide the umpire for not treating the situation as he should have if it were batter interference, and then chide me for not knowing batter interference is DDB, when we're not freaking talking about batter interference.

Let me be clear: THIS IS NOT BATTER INTERFERENCE.

I never said it was.

This incident has to be either of the following:

1. Batter interference, which by rule it cannot be (though the PU's actions appear to indicate he was treating it a such).

2. Interference by a batter-runner or runner. In this case, the interference has to be intentional, which it's not. If it is not, then interference and the out should not—cannot—be called. If they were, then the incorrect ruling was, in fact, made.

Jaksa/Roder has a very good explanation of what they refer to as "interference without a play." That seems to fit here much more appropriately. While the J/R manual is OBR, of course, we do know that where NCAA rules are not clear or silent, they defer to OBR for guidance and everything interpretation.

True, you keep on saying it's not and making that the basis of your argument... why do you chide me for "not knowing BI is DDB" when we're not talking about BI at all?

I agree it cannot be - I don't agree the PU's actions indicate anything.

Exactly.
You keep saying this, repeatedly. Nevermind that they've not told us ANYthing on this sitch so it's conceivable, while improbable, that PU had intent for some reason on this play. You've been asked repeatedly (by more than just me) to back that assertion up by rule. This is the crux of the argument. What rule do you use to back up your assertion that it HAS TO BE intentional to be called?

1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw...

Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.

Wellllll,
 

Since there is only one poster in this thread that actually worked an NCAA Regional Series this year I'll stick with his review of the play.

T

Three pages and 95 posts later, can we bury the dead horse?

That was my thought when I saw his post....a rose amongst thorns.

Are you sure it's dead?

http://thecenekreport.squarespace.co...d_horse.jpg?__

And of course that makes him the final word, perfection personified.

Ooo... something we can agree on.

Seems ironic to me that Tim wants to simply go with the word of the one NCAA Regional umpire who has posted (honestly ... I don't know who that is, nor do I know whether he's agreed with 25, me, or neither!)... when it's the ruling and judgement of 4 other NCAA regional umpires that have brought about the question. I don't think we can assume the 1 is right, since it's obvious we're not assuming the 4 were right...

Au contraire. It's clear that the PU quickly realized it was ball four. His indicating this by flashing 4 fingers and commenting that it was ball four, followed by his not even acting on his initial interference call--he disregarded his call and the outcome entirely--make it obvious that his first actions were those of a PU calling batter interference.


To what rules are you referring? I have an NCAA Baseball Rule Book in front of me and do not see those rule numbers and the wording you cite.

Regardless, as I said, if this is not batter interference, which it's not, then the only other possibility is interference by a batter-runner or runner, in which case any interference that hinders a fielder attempting to make a play off a thrown ball on an at-risk runner must be intentional (with the exception of Running Lane Interference on a dropped third strike).

Was this B.I.? No
Was this an intentional interference? No

Clear conclusion: No penalty of an out should be or can be recorded.

If one is to argue that the rules aren't very clear on this (and I submit they actually are, for the most part), then an umpire can employ the notion of "common sense and fair play." This is something the Jaksa/Roder manual does when it discussed possible interference without a play. Here's an example from that manual:

Considering that R1 in the ASU-TX game wasn't trying to acquire second--he was awarded it on the batter's walk--nor was R1 trying to return to second after overrunning or oversliding it, a result similar to the J/R one might even be the way to go.

I agree. If I was to work the CWS, would that make me immune from erring in a post-season game? If I chimed in on a CWS play, does that mean it should end the discussion? Heck, we've seen MLB Umpires screw up and have called them on the carpet in this forum. Are we not permitted to do this because we're not MLB Umpires?

We're all human, from Little League to the Major Leagues. We all make mistakes, some minor, some major.

Well, except, of course, for the Regional Umpire alluded to above. ;)

He didn't "quickly" realize anything. He did signal 4 with his fingers, but he yelled (like he was pissed off about it, in fact) THAT's INTERFERENCE while pointing about 5 times at BR heading toward first ... all of this AFTER waiving the 4 fingers nearly immediately.

I've repeatedly asked for a rule citation to back that up... you won't provide one.

So if it's not batter interference it can't be interference by a batter-runner or runner? OK. I guess it's interference by the center fielder or some other defensive player. :rolleyes:

I cannot cite a rule when no interference occurred. My contention is that if one is going to claim there was interference, it would have to be by a batter-runner or runner (here the B-R). The closest one would be 7-11-f; however, that refers to a play at the plate. Considering that there was no play being made on R1 in the situation at hand, again, the batter could not have been interfering with anyone.

DING!! DING!! DING!!! We have a winner!!!. You could not of said it better. Common sense goes out the window in trying to defend this STUPID CALL.