Texas - ASU game 3

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by 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.

I love how you continually say, "This is not batter's interference" when no one else is arguing that it is. I love how even after it's been established, ad nauseum, that this is not batter interference, you then chide the umpire for not treating the situation as he should have if it were batter interference, and then chide me for not knowing batter interference is DDB, when we're not freaking talking about batter interference.

Let me be clear: THIS IS NOT BATTER INTERFERENCE.

[Tim C]

Since there is only one poster in this thread that actually worked an NCAA Regional Series this year I'll stick with his review of the play.

T

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I never said it was.

True, you keep on saying it's not and making that the basis of your argument... why do you chide me for "not knowing BI is DDB" when we're not talking about BI at all?

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).

I agree it cannot be - I don't agree the PU's actions indicate anything.

2. Interference by a batter-runner or runner.

Exactly.

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.

You keep saying this, repeatedly. Nevermind that they've not told us ANYthing on this sitch so it's conceivable, while improbable, that PU had intent for some reason on this play. You've been asked repeatedly (by more than just me) to back that assertion up by rule. This is the crux of the argument. What rule do you use to back up your assertion that it HAS TO BE intentional to be called?

1.72: ... the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire, or spectator that denies the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

12.2.4: The batter-runner may not interfere with a fielder's attempt to throw...

Yes ... 12.2.5 mentions intent - but 12.2.5 is not an exception to 12.2.4 and doesn't invalidate 12.2.4.