Texas - ASU game 3

[TonyT]

Originally Posted by txump81

Look at the other side of the argument as well. If you're going to give the catcher the BI here, why wouldn't a coach have the catcher make that errant throw everytime and get the out?

Very interesting idea. For this very reason it was a wrong call.

[tcarilli]

I have thought a lot about this issue in this thread. I joined this thread because this is a very nuanced play with lots of implications. I joined this thread because, I don't know the proper ruling in this case. I am trying to work through the issues with the rule book with peers. Much the same way peer reviewed research is done in academics. It's easy to be right when we don't allow our thoughts to be seen in the light of day. We can't be the emperor with no clothes.

Those who are disagreeing with the judgment on the call, that's fine. Those that are therefore implying that the umpire is in some ways incompetent, that's not fair.

Those that think, they know what Augie Garrido said to the plate umpire, you are only concluding what you think he may have said. Garrido did not come out right away. They were about to begin play again, before the round of discussions began.

While thinking about this post, I decided to look up this

Batter Becomes Base Runner
SECTION 2. The batter becomes a base runner:
b. Instantly after four balls have been called by the umpire;

Does this imply that the batter remains the batter until the umpire confirms the pitch is ball four? If so, he can be guilty of interference. If not, he cannot be guilty of unintentional interference.

Did the rule makers word 8-2-b for the eventuality of this play or do they mean as soon as the pitch passes the hitter out of the strike zone or something else.

I don't think common sense and fair play would allow us to allow hitters to run out in front of catchers who are trying to make throws to retire runners that the can't know the status of until after they have thrown the ball.

I'm think I know where I stand on this one, but I'm still not sure. That is why discussion of rulings is important. Referring to judgments as boneheaded or an abortion or whatever will not move us closer to truth. I know for sure I have never missed one from my couch or behind the fence.

[UMP25]

I wouldn't call it stupid; rather, it's simply a mistake. We've all committed them.

[UmpJM]

Tony,

Well if you're going to try to have an intelligent conversation about this sitch instead of getting into pissing contests with other people....

Heck, why not?!

I happened to be watching the game when it happened. My initial reaction was WTF!?!? The TV coverage was abysmal and I was quite surprised that Esmay didn't make more of an argument.

I have read the relevant rules and the available interps, though NCAA-specific interps are rare.

Based on the rules, I believe the batter had become a runner before the action occurred which resulted in an infraction being called.

Therefore, I believe that, by rule, the umpire must have judged intentional interference in order to have a "rules supported" call of interference.

There is also the question of was there a "play" and is it proper to call an out for interference if there was no "play" to be interfered with. I lean to ward the camp that would say there was no "play" (because there was no runner in "jeopardy" at the time of throw), and, generally, unless there is an out to be had, the interference does not result in an out. (a la return toss interference).

However, I could see a case for calling an out if the offense were judged to have intentionally interfered in order to create an unintended advantage (e.g., force a bad throw to allow a runner to advance an extra base).

So, if the umpire were convinced that the batter-runner deliberately timed his initial advance to 1B to hinder the catcher, AND the catcher was, in fact, hindered, I suppose you could make a case for the call.

That's the best I can come up with for "making sense" of the call.

I do not believe I would have called what he did, but I've made mistaken calls myself, so I might be wrong.

JM

BTW, I couldn't tell from the video or any of the accounts what they did with the R1 (who might have ended up at 3B?). Does anyone know?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

BTW, I couldn't tell from the video or any of the accounts what they did with the R1 (who might have ended up at 3B?). Does anyone know?

Since, the crew did ultimately rule interference, r1 was returned to first.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

I know for sure I have never missed one from my couch or behind the fence.

I have, Tony. Had to huddle and discuss it and then I changed my call.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

Well, no. But I do find it interesting that he's one of the few who hasn't insisted he has the definitive answer and he hasn't put down any other poster or any other opinion.

Amazing.

[tcarilli]

Another interesting note on when the batter becomes a runner.

In OBR, the batter becomes a runner when Four “balls” have been called by the umpire

In NHFS, the batter becomes a runner when a fourth ball is called by the umpire 8-1-1 c

The waters muddy.

[umpjim]

The scorekeeping for this play shows BI. The pitch sequence only goes up to ball 3. Wilson gets no BB. I don't know if they consulted with the umps but on unusual plays that might happen. Picture a close pitch which the batter thinks is B4. He's off and running and F2 comes up throwing. You call strike 2 and you have BI. Does the batter have to wait till you call ball 4 before he is legally a BR? NCAA implies this. I haven't checked the exact wording of the other codes yet.
Edited because I was doing it on an iPad.

[UmpJM]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

Another interesting note on when the batter becomes a runner.

In OBR ball four is not listed as a time when the batter becomes a runner except tangentially in 7.05 (i) for a base award on a pitch lodged in equipment. ....

Tony,

Where on earth did you get that notion?

6.08 The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—

(a) Four “balls” have been called by the umpire;

JM

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UmpJM (nee CoachJM)

Tony,

Where on earth did you get that notion?



JM

Whoops may bad JM. I missed that one. I thought so, did a search and missed it. Thanks for pointing that out.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Well, no. But I do find it interesting that he's one of the few who hasn't insisted he has the definitive answer and he hasn't put down any other poster or any other opinion.

Amazing.

That's his problem then.

[Durham]

I don't really have any problems at the moment. Living a blessed life and just trying to remember to thank the big guy every day for it.

[UMP25]

I don't doubt it, which is why it was tongue-in-cheek (if I didn't mention that, SOME idiot here would be throwing a hissy fit at the comment).

[Larry1953]

To continue to beat the dead horse. I read the NCAA rulebook. It says the batter becomes a runner the instant of ball four. Whereas the batter can be called for interference for actions intentional or unintentional that interfere with action around homeplate, the rules specifically state that a runner can only be called out for INTENTIONAL interference with a thrown ball. It could hardly be said that a runner merely shifting his weight toward first to take the base he was entitled to with the ball four is doing anything intentional to interfere with a throw from the catcher. Intentional means to perform an action that is not typical of a baseball play that displays a willful intent to get in the way of a throw or a thrown ball. For example, by NCAA rules, a popup slide by a runner going into directly into second on a straight line slide to break up a double play is allowed even if it results in contact and interferes with the keystone fielders throw. That is ruled a normal baseball action.

The walk indeed takes precedence over the "interference" because it immediately made the batter a runner and only the batter can be called for unintentional interference.

I recall a play where JR Towles of the Astros was attempting to make a throw to retire a runner attempting to steal third. The throw hit the batter's helmet and deflected into the dugout which allowed the runner to score. No interference was called.