Texas - ASU game 3

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

They misapplied the batter interference rule because this could not have been a batter's interference.

But no one official has ever said they applied the batter interference rule. In fact, the only published report I've seen that mentions a rule mentions rule 2.50.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But no one official has ever said they applied the batter interference rule. In fact, the only published report I've seen that mentions a rule mentions rule 2.50.

It is clear from the play that the PU wasn't utilizing 2.50; rather, he instinctively ruled batter's interference, which it was not. Heck, after realizing it was ball 4--he acknowledged as much--he didn't even follow through with the typical delayed dead ball penalty. Only after Augie complained did he get together with the crew and pull this incorrect ruling out of thin air.

[UmpTTS43]

Originally Posted by UMP25

It is clear from the play that the PU wasn't utilizing 2.50; rather, he instinctively ruled batter's interference, which it was not. Heck, after realizing it was ball 4--he acknowledged as much--he didn't even follow through with the typical delayed dead ball penalty. Only after Augie complained did he get together with the crew and pull this incorrect ruling out of thin air.

Now that's funny

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by umptts43

now that's funny

+1

[UMP25]

But true.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

But true.

Oh wise one, please enlighten us. Explain the use of the "typical delayed ball penalty" regarding interference by a BR and which rule you're referring to. My book says, "Effect: The ball is dead..."

[UMP25]

The fact that you do not realize batter interference is a "delayed dead ball" situation precludes you from any further discussion in this thread. Please learn the rules before attempting to chide someone who does.

[UMP25]

I never said it was.

This incident has to be either of the following:

1. Batter interference, which by rule it cannot be (though the PU's actions appear to indicate he was treating it a such).

2. Interference by a batter-runner or runner. In this case, the interference has to be intentional, which it's not. If it is not, then interference and the out should not—cannot—be called. If they were, then the incorrect ruling was, in fact, made.

Jaksa/Roder has a very good explanation of what they refer to as "interference without a play." That seems to fit here much more appropriately. While the J/R manual is OBR, of course, we do know that where NCAA rules are not clear or silent, they defer to OBR for guidance and everything interpretation.