Texas - ASU game 3

[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.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by tcarilli

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.

Why not 8-5.d?

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Why not 8-5.d?

I overlooked that one, the wording of it implies that it does not apply to the batter-runner. But I see how you might apply this one here. I think, however, it would be a stretch. The spirit and intent of this rule is that runners who are hit with thrown balls while running the bases are not ispo facto guilty of interference. The batter-runner is strictly neither a batter nor a runner. Given that, he would not allowed to be legally within the runner's lane and reach up and grab a thrown ball; I think 2-50 covers that situation.

Leaving aside our judgment of the interference by the batter-runner; this is a very difficult rule application.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by TussAgee11

He is no longer a batter...

Right.

But:

1) The bold heading on this section says "When Batter or BR is out"

2) The section itself says "A batter is out"

3) Many of the 22 specific ways say "the individual"; this specific rule says "batter"

4) Rule u. also says "batter" but clearly refers to BR (it's the dropped third strike rule)

So, while *I think* this rule shouldn't apply, it's possible that someone in the NCAA thinks differently.

I do hope they address is, w/o throwing the umpire under the bus.

Had it been strike 3 instead of ball 4, and the batter's movement was the same, would we have interference? Does it matter?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Had it been strike 3 instead of ball 4, and the batter's movement was the same, would we have interference? Does it matter?

This is a very good question, but it pushes on a different issue. Two questions:

1. Can we EVER have (unintentional) INT on a BR for stepping across the plate and "hindering" F2 throwing to "retire" R1 advancing due to an award? This is a rules question.

2. Do we IN FACT have INT in the play in question, given the slight, late, movement by the BR in the video? This is a judgment question.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is a very good question, but it pushes on a different issue. Two questions:

1. Can we EVER have (unintentional) INT on a BR for stepping across the plate and "hindering" F2 throwing to "retire" R1 advancing due to an award? This is a rules question.

2. Do we IN FACT have INT in the play in question, given the slight, late, movement by the BR in the video? This is a judgment question.

1. I believe so - given previous conversations we've had both here and with supervisors. I am willing to admit, however, that the inconsistency with which the NCAA book uses batter instead of batter-runner is the reason for this confusion and I can see both sides, honestly.

2. I've tried to confine my argument to the assumption that PU is the only one who can answer this question, as it is purely judgement. However, asked bluntly my answer is heck no. I, however, have replay and multiple angles from which to make this call - and none of the replays have the same angle as PU.

[TussAgee11]

Bob you do bring up an interesting point... if we have a caught strike 3 we can still have INT so him being done with his batter status, at least in that case, does not matter. But that play is specifically covered... this one isn't.

I'm not going to pretend to be a NCAA rules guru. That set is something I am beginning to study and this is a pretty intricate discussion.

There seems to be at least some of the typical contradiction and lack of clarity associated with so many rule codes.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by mbyron

This is a very good question, but it pushes on a different issue. Two questions:

1. Can we EVER have (unintentional) INT on a BR for stepping across the plate and "hindering" F2 throwing to "retire" R1 advancing due to an award? This is a rules question.

2. Do we IN FACT have INT in the play in question, given the slight, late, movement by the BR in the video? This is a judgment question.

I think No and No.