Texas - ASU game 3

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

So what is your solution, MRUMPIRE? More BS like the Texas-ASU fiasco?

Oh, my heavens, no. Your suggestion is absolutely, without question, the best ever. Why don't you take it to the NCAA MLB Rules Committees and get that changed right away. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

[Larry1953]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

Oh, my heavens, no. Your suggestion is absolutely, without question, the best ever. Why don't you take it to the NCAA MLB Rules Committees and get that changed right away. Be sure to let us know how it goes.

MRUMPIRE, I wouldn't be so presumptuous. Much better to let Auggie and the infallible PUngo there and codify the "interference supersedes the walk rule with lettered subsections that includes its enforcement even if the PU forgets the count and negates the rule that a runner has to do something INTENTIONAL to have interference called on him. Oh, and don't forget another subsection that says the PU should be able to strut his stuff and infallie judgment to be able to make an interference call BEFORE he decides whether the pitch was a ball or strike. Something like THAT would surely solve the problem for all time.

[tcarilli]

@Durham

I have come to the conclusion that the commons sense and fair play ruling would be to ignore the "interference," but return R1 to second. In essence, treat this interference similar to back swing interference in the sense that we are not going to get an out, but we will not allow runners to advance.

[UMP25]

I had alluded to the same thing, Tony. As I mentioned earlier, Jaksa/Roder has some examples of what they term "interference without a play." In the situation at hand, this would mean no out recorded, but R1 is returned to second.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by UMP25

I had alluded to the same thing, Tony. As I mentioned earlier, Jaksa/Roder has some examples of what they term "interference without a play." In the situation at hand, this would mean no out recorded, but R1 is returned to second.

That would be similar to the AR where batter strikes out on D3K with first occpied, starts to run and inadvartantly contacts the ball. The batter is out, ball is dead, runners cannot advance (unless they were stealing on the pitch, iirc).

That seems like a good, fair, rule, but I think it's farther afield given the current rule wording. That is, I wouldn't be surprised to see this CHANGED for next year (or whenever the rules cycle is).

[UMP25]

The next cycle is 2013-2014; however, the NCAA can change a ruling like this whenever it wants. IMHO, I think the whole batter interference and related rules are very unclear, even confusing, the way they're presently written. OBR, at least, is a bit clearer.

[Durham]

Tony,

I would allow the action, because if you change it or add a rule to change it, then you will end up effecting far more than you intend to. Example, a guy gets picked off at first and then is hit in the back while running to first and the ball goes into the outfield allowing R1 to get to 3rd. Technically he interfered with a throw, but I think we can agree that we are not going to call interference unless it was an intentional act. I could come up with coutless other examples, but I think you see my point. Like I said earlier, I think the rules are rather clear, but I could be wrong. And that would not be the first time today.