Texas - ASU game 3

[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.

[Larry1953]

Anybody else see the play in the SC/Virginia game? R1 is stealing, the batter swings and misses and ends up out of the batter's box. The catcher had to alter his throw and drop down sidearm to find a slot to make his throw. That made his throw slice away from the bag. I think that was clearly a BI infraction but it was not called. Orel told us that it was not because the catcher did not initiate contact.

[UMP25]

Yeah, and Robin Ventura the other day said a batter who squares to bunt has to pull his bat back in order to not have a strike called on him on the attempt.

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by Larry1953

Anybody else see the play in the SC/Virginia game? R1 is stealing, the batter swings and misses and ends up out of the batter's box. The catcher had to alter his throw and drop down sidearm to find a slot to make his throw. That made his throw slice away from the bag. I think that was clearly a BI infraction but it was not called. Orel told us that it was not because the catcher did not initiate contact.

Didn't you also post about this in the "terriffic call in CWS" thread? Please stop.

[MikeStrybel]

After so many pages of suspect information from members, I offer this from the NCAA Division I Baseball Game Officials Manual. It is issued to all Tournament umpires and they are expected to have it with them while in Omaha. From the section entitled: NCAA BASEBALL RULES COMMITTEE
FINAL RULES CHANGES – EFFECTIVE FOR 2011 AND 2012 SEASONS on
page 62:

Rule 2-50: Add to (3) on 6-3b (3): If the catcher‘s initial throw retires the runner and the batter does not strike out, the batter is not out and the interference is disregarded. The ball remains live and other runners may advance. [add—If there is an attempt by the catcher to throw and the attempt is aborted due to an action by the offense, the ball becomes dead immediately, the batter is out and all runners return to the base occupied at the time of the pitch (TOP). Rationale: This change makes consistent the wording for 6-3b and 7-11f with 2-50.

It appears that this year's very best have some of these points of emphasis in mind while working.

I find the Effort and Professionalism section for rating this year's crew extremely telling to those who still believe preventive umpiring is acceptable in better baseball.

Fraternization - Avoids excessive, casual, and/or unnecessary conversation with uniformed personnel or spectators, during the game

This is made easier by the fact that the crew is miked, but definetly something that bears watching. Finally, I have worked the Gerry Davis stance for a number of years now and have been comfortable seeing that ball. The current NCAA standards prohibit it. They only want the slot or modified slot used by tournament crew. I hate having to change but even if I never get a chance to shine in Omaha, I suspect that it is good advice and will adapt. The crews I've watched so far are really incredible at the plate.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

Finally, I have worked the Gerry Davis stance for a number of years now and have been comfortable seeing that ball. The current NCAA standards prohibit it. They only want the slot or modified slot used by tournament crew.

So how does one explain the knee stance used by a guy the other day?

[UmpJM]

Mike,

Originally Posted by MikeStrybel

... Finally, I have worked the Gerry Davis stance for a number of years now and have been comfortable seeing that ball. The current NCAA standards prohibit it. They only want the slot or modified slot used by tournament crew. I hate having to change but even if I never get a chance to shine in Omaha, I suspect that it is good advice and will adapt. The crews I've watched so far are really incredible at the plate.

The guy working the plat in the NC - Vandy eliminiation game (Scott Erby) is using a Davis stance - with slot positioning.

Much like Gerry himself:



An article written by Scott Ehret on the Davis system in 2009 also talks about using slot positioning when using the Davis stance.

The Davis Stance

A lot of the guys in my association use the Davis stance because Gerry came and taught at an association clinic around 2004-2005 (before I had joined) and they all use slot alignment positioning.

I wonder if his thinking changed to slot vs. "over the catcher" after you learned it.

JM