Texas - ASU game 3

[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 mbcrowder

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.

Sorry, no it's not.

[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.