Texas - ASU game 3

[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!

[Adam]

questions;
1. If R1 passes 2B, is he liable for putout if F6 happens to be holding the ball?
2. Does that sort of possibility matter for this play (I'm guessing not)?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

questions;
1. If R1 passes 2B, is he liable for putout if F6 happens to be holding the ball?
2. Does that sort of possibility matter for this play (I'm guessing not)?

Not in this case. If it did, then theoretically, every runner is still at liability to be put out at all times.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Not in this case. If it did, then theoretically, every runner is still at liability to be put out at all times.

Kinda what I figgered, thanks.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

Not in this case. If it did, then theoretically, every runner is still at liability to be put out at all times.

REALLY? You don't think R1 could be put out if he passed the base and F6 had the ball? No wonder you are completely misunderstanding the situation.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

questions;
1. If R1 passes 2B, is he liable for putout if F6 happens to be holding the ball?
2. Does that sort of possibility matter for this play (I'm guessing not)?

1. Yes, obviously.
2. YES (wrong guess) - which is the ONLY reason interference is a possibility.

[Durham]

I would start this discussion by simply posting the NCAA definition of interference found in rule 2 and base your arguments for or against on that. If you are looking for a true discussion and growth, start there.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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!

I have posted the rule above. On a 3-2 pitch with the runner running, the catcher cannot attempt to retire r1? He does not no the status of the pitch when he attempts to retire the runner. Suppose the b-r actually does interfere with the throw and that allows r1 to advance to third, will you allow that advance?

Can you cite the rule or just the "esteemed rules guru." This is an unusual play when many rules some at odds with others come into play. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

[TonyT]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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!

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.

[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.