Texas - ASU game 3

[UmpTTS43]

Its good to know that none of you will ever miss a call like this. Learn from it,apply it to your game and get better.

[umpjim]

Has anybody officially said it was a missed call? The scorebook doesn't give Wison a BB. He gets BI after B3.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Its good to know that none of you will ever miss a call like this. Learn from it,apply it to your game and get better.

Where do you get this impression? Who said as much? Who has said the umpire shouldn't be working that level? Can't plays get discussed here so others can learn as well?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Its good to know that none of you will ever miss a call like this. Learn from it,apply it to your game and get better.

Condescend much?

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Condescend much?

When I can.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by UmpTTS43

Its good to know that none of you will ever miss a call like this. Learn from it,apply it to your game and get better.

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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

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.

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.

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

[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.

[mbyron]

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.

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

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!