Texas - ASU game 3

[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?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

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

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

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.

[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'".)

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

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;

[TussAgee11]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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;

He is no longer a batter...

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

He is no longer a batter...

You're right. I forgot to post the entire rule.

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;

Since he is still an offensive player, 2-50 applies to him.

Here are all of the rule references concerning intentional interference by the batter-runner or runner.

7-11-h. Does not apply.

7-11-o. Does not apply

6-2-h implies intentional interference by runners other than b-r.

7-11-r applies to preceding runners in a force situation.

You might interpret that one to apply here.

Those are the reference to intentional interference. Given rule 2-50 if it does not explicitly say intentional it does not need to be.