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 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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[UMP25]

I

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;

You are referencing the wrong rule. The player is no longer a batter; therefore, any interference must be INtentional. It wasn't. Consequently, it was an incorrect call and incorrect ruling.

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I

You are referencing the wrong rule. The player is no longer a batter; therefore, any interference must be INtentional. It wasn't. Consequently, it was an incorrect call and incorrect ruling.

I'm willing to agree with you that it is the wrong call. I don't see INT here.

My point, however, was not that the call was right, but that the RULING - based on the assumption that the call is right - is the correct ruling. And the CALL is purely judgement. I will admit I see why you feel the rules state that interference on a throw by BR must be intentional to be called. I think you should also admit that the rules are not as clear as they should be regarding this.

[UmpTTS43]

Ornery earlier with post.

Think of this senario. R2. Batter takes ball 4. R2 has delayed steal. As BR leaves the box advancing to first, F2 is hindered, unintentionally by BR, in his attempt to retire the stealing R2. What have you?

I have nothing. BR has his award and is doing nothing that he is not allowed to do, advance on his award. If BR intentionally "interferes" now we have an infraction that can be penalized.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I

You are referencing the wrong rule. The player is no longer a batter; therefore, any interference must be INtentional. It wasn't. Consequently, it was an incorrect call and incorrect ruling.

So, which rule applies here?

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I think you should also admit that the rules are not as clear as they should be regarding this.

The rules of baseball across all codes are filled with ambiguities and confusion, but with respect to the play at hand, I don't believe it's as confusing as it appears.

Of course, I can just be confused.

[tcarilli]

Originally Posted by UMP25

The rules of baseball across all codes are filled with ambiguities and confusion, but with respect to the play at hand, I don't believe it's as confusing as it appears.

Of course, I can just be confused.

So, which rule? You seem pretty adamant about this being a misapplication of rules. There is no such thing as a general misapplication only specific misapplications. So again, I ask which rule?