Texas - ASU game 3
 

ANyone watching this?

In the middle of the umpires trying to figure out the possible interference call on the batter. I think he's calling the runner out but they haven't announced it.

R1 stealing, check-swing ball 4 on a full count. Catcher rises to throw to 2nd. Batter walks in front of the catcher throwing to 2nd. Thrown ball goes behind the 2nd baseman into right center field.

PU immediately calls interference on the batter. Runner goes to third. PU then waives off the interference - leaving runners at 1st and 3rd. Garrido talks to PU, who gathers the crew. They talk for a LONG time, then go talk to Garrido, and then to ASU's coach - who is pissed.

They DID rule the runner out. Interesting. Correct I think, but interesting the way it played out.

And now Nomah, the TH, is making an idiot of himself.

I must be dense.

How do you have BI on ball 4? Ball 4 moves the batter to first on the award and forces the R1 to second.

The supposed BI occurred after Ball 4. I can see sending the R1 back to 2nd, but...

I am no umpire but I do not understand this being interference. Is it not customary that a batter in the right hand batter box crosses in front of the plate when his is walked?

I know baseball has some rules that the masses do not understand. Is this one of them?

Always good to know the THs in college baseball are as stupid as the ones in college softball. NCAA should ban Nomar from TV. They do have the right to approve announcers, and Nomar should be disapproved.

If nothing else, it's interference because the umpire SAID it was interference. It doesn't make any difference if there actually WAS interference. There was in the judgment of the umpire at that moment. Nomar needs to shut up.

Nomah may be (is) an idiot but but I don't see how they got this outcome. Unless you see an intentional pause and shoulder turn into the catcher. Then maybe the BR should be out and return the runner.

For those less interested in commentators than the play:

1. The pitch was ball 4, so the batter became a runner and no longer liable for batter interference.
2. He might, however, be liable for runner interference if he intentionally hindered a throw.
3. Although F2 threw down, there was no play on R1 because he was forced to advance by the award to the batter. It's always on the defense to know the situation and whether a play is possible.
4. Since BR did not intentionally interfere -- he was permitted to move toward 1B to take his award, and shouldn't reasonably have expected a throw -- he was not called for INT.
5. The umpires presumably allowed the play to stand because F2 risked a throw without possibility of a play and there was no infraction by the BR.

1-4, I agree.
5 - See, there's the problem... they DID rule interference. they DID NOT allow the play to stand. Either R1 was ruled out and BR put on first, or BR was ruled out and R1 returned to first. TV did an awful job telling us which runner was left on first base after the play, so I'm not completely sure. I THINK it was the batter.

I was happy for the rally-killing out here... but the umpire in me doesn't understand how this outcome was what they came up with.

Oh, I guess I misunderstood your first post. I thought you were saying that R1 remained on 3B after the throwing error by the defense.

I can't see how they could have called out R1 here under any circumstances. They must have ruled runner INT on the BR and called him out, returning R1 to 1B.

The box score should have it.

Unofficial box score, http://ncaasports.cstv.com/gametrack...&sport=mbasebl shows Wilson out on BI (which it wasn't).
Newspaper accounts vary about who was out.

An article in the Austin American-Statesman cites that the batter "was ruled out Section 50, A.R. 2 of the baseball manual."

I am hoping someone can expand on the what baseball manual is actually referenced in this article.

Thank you in advance.

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 teh 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.

It's the NCAA interference rule.

I don't see how they could judge that F2 was hindered in making a play on R1, since there was no play possible on R1.

I didn't see the play. Despite ball four, was R1 stealing?

Yes - plus full count and check swing. I'm sure catcher was throwing in case he appealed and got a strike out of it.

And as much as I was rooting for UT --- I didn't see any reason for interference on BR either. Nomah was going ON and ON about no contact, and other irrelevant nonsense. But I didn't see INT either. Not because there wasn't a play - but because I simply didn't see BR interfering with the throw at all.

Would love to have been a fly in that umpire huddle.

Any chance someone can post the video?

JJ

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

Posted on YouTube off someone's TV screen.

Don't see interference from what the video shows.

Box score shows Wilson out on BI with a (3-2 KBFBB) count. They show no BB for him.
http://http://www.texassports.com/sp....html#GAME.PLY

Inter what? That wasn't close. Neither was the attempt.

PU had to have a brain freeze about ball four. BR even hesitates until catcher releases ball. Of course F2 also had a brain freeze. He is allowed to throw to second but I certainly wouldn't be calling interference on this unless BR went out of his way to interfer.

And the announcers, well you have to have a brain before it can become frozen on you.

I'm not convinced from the video we've seen that I would call this INT either - but we should also remember that PU has the opposite angle we do, and was closer.

How did F2 have a brain freeze - on a 3-2 count and a steal (AND a check swing), you aren't going to wait for the call or the appeal on the swing to throw the ball - you're going to throw it down first.

If it was ball 4 he was no longer a batter so how do they get BI?

What happened to ball 4
 

Not up to speed on scoring but perusing a better link to this game's scoring I see that any other player's BB had 4 B's in the player's at bat recap:

Arizona St. vs Texas - Baseball Division I - June 12, 2011 - NCAA.com

Wilson's at bat does not. Was he in limbo until ump said ball 4 and thus he was a batter and not a BR and thus called out for BI? Did the pitcher not walk him? What did they do with that pitch?

PU came up with BI by pointing towards the BR with his left hand and a fist on the right. He then realized it was ball 4 and seemed to reverse his call. Then Garriso came out to argue and the umpires got together and 4 had a brain freeze. F4 mishandled a mediocre throw to 1B. He took his eyes off the ball and was thinking about the tag. If I was ASU coach, I might have said the magic "P" word.

From what I saw, the BR didn't cross in front of F2 until F2's arm was back by his side. Don't see how that is INT.

Its good to know that none of you will ever miss a call like this. Learn from it,apply it to your game and get better.

Has anybody officially said it was a missed call? The scorebook doesn't give Wison a BB. He gets BI after B3.

Where do you get this impression? Who said as much? Who has said the umpire shouldn't be working that level? Can't plays get discussed here so others can learn as well?

OK, you are Tim Esmay. I am Scott Cline. "Tim what exactly is it that you are protesting?" That is, tell us exactly which rule you think is being misapplied here. Remember you can not protest a judgment call.

Condescend much?

+1

When I can.

That's not the point. This was a 3rd trimester abortion and totally inexcusable in a Super Regional game. We all have made mistakes, myself included, but to make one like this, which was totally avoidable, is unacceptable. The call itself was bad enough, but to have all 4 guys get together and sustain the bad call? Completely unacceptable.

The huddle wasn't going to change this. Taking that long to figure out what to do in the case of interference was a bit embarrassing. But once PU declares interference, the result was actually the correct result.

While I didn't see interference, I'm not quite sure what the other umpires could have done. Given that it was called, I think the correct ruling was made (BR out, R1 returns).

Maybe (and this is pure speculation, I admit), PU has the BR timing his movement across the plate to get in F2's way ==> intentional interference with a throw.

Until (and If) something comes out from NCAA, I don't know that we'll know what happened and whether it was just judgment, or a rule, or what.

One cannot have batter interference on a catcher's throw to retire R1 when R1 cannot be retired due to the batter receiving a base on balls. I'm willing to bet the PU forgot that it was a walk and instead instinctively ruled a batter's interference here, which it wasn't. Because it wasn't, the little umpire crew confab should have reversed it and ruled that no interference actually occurred.

Rule site? (You are right that it's not "batter" interference ... it's just interference) You can absolutely have interference on exactly this play - and if you couldn't, coach could have protested - which he didn't do.

Little umpire crew confabs are not designed to overturn judgement calls.

But they should overturn misapplied rulings, of which this was one.

I'm well aware of batter-runner interference, which this was not, either. This was simply a PU brain fart that should have been corrected. If I was the offensive team head coach, I would have protested.

What do you base this assertion on? Yes, if there was a misapplied ruling, they should and WOULD fix it. The fact that they didn't is evidence that it was not a misapplied ruling. Maybe you, or I, or 90% of the umpires here wouldn't have called interference on the BR - but this PU did.

And when PU said, "I judged interference on the BR", what exactly would you be basing your protest on?

Mike, I think his point was the same as mine earlier on: although in general you can have runner INT by the BR (nobody disputes that), in this case there was no play possible on R1, who was advancing on the BR's award.

To put it differently: what exactly did the BR hinder by his actions? Don't say a throw: it needs to be a throw that is part of defense, i.e. a throw that is part of retiring a runner. We don't have one here.

So just because all 4 guys uphold an incorrect ruling that ruling must have been correct? Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

On the fact that there couldn't be interference on this play because the catcher could not have been making a play to retire a runner if said runner could not have been liable to have been put out; he had the base free and clear due to the walk.

That happens to be what an esteemed rules guru said to me when I asked him about this. R1 was never in jeopardy of being put out due to the batter's base on balls. Consequently, no play to retire him was possible. As a result, the catcher could not have been hindered or impeded in his attempt to retire a runner if said runner was "unretirable."

The lengths to which some people here go to defend the indefensible never ceases to amaze me. How dare anyone criticize a CWS or Super Regional or Regional umpire!

questions;
1. If R1 passes 2B, is he liable for putout if F6 happens to be holding the ball?
2. Does that sort of possibility matter for this play (I'm guessing not)?

I would start this discussion by simply posting the NCAA definition of interference found in rule 2 and base your arguments for or against on that. If you are looking for a true discussion and growth, start there.

Not in this case. If it did, then theoretically, every runner is still at liability to be put out at all times.

Kinda what I figgered, thanks.

[QUOTE=mbyron;765986]Throwing to a base where a runner will be has been ruled a "play" in both NCAA and FED, even when that base is an award. There's even a caseplay for this in FED regarding a BR who just received a base on balls - throw to first is interfered with - and is considered interference.

The throw doesn't necessarily have to be to RETIRE a runner, but could also be to prevent further action by a runner. Also - if you forget that PU was vociferous out of the gate, that throw did, in fact, go errant and gave R another base. If the interference existed ... it certainly could have been the cause of R going to 3rd.

The RULING was correct. I do think that if we gather 4 NCAA umpires and ask them to make a ruling on a situation, we can rest assured they will make the correct ruling. No need to roll eyes at that. This isn't PeeWee where umpire knowledge is suspect. You may say that the CALL was incorrect ... and I might even agree... but the call was MADE - the only thing the gathering could really discuss was the proper RULING on that call.

Protest denied. This statement is incorrect. Thank you for your donation, and turn in your NCAA umpire card at the door. (PS - I'm done trying to convince you ... but please try to find an NCAA rule to support just the statement you've made here ... not whether the play SHOULD HAVE been interference ... but that it "cannot be interference because the catcher could not have been making 'a play to retire a runner'".)

REALLY? You don't think R1 could be put out if he passed the base and F6 had the ball? No wonder you are completely misunderstanding the situation.

1. Yes, obviously.
2. YES (wrong guess) - which is the ONLY reason interference is a possibility.

Ask the PU if it was intentional. If / when he says "no" then protest that interference by a runner must be intentional.

Does anyone else remember a pro game where the catcher throw down on a full count pitch which was ruled ball four, and the runner from first overslid second base and was tagged out? Seems to me if that batter had interfered with the throw he was subject being called for interference....

JJ

A good point, one that appears lost on Mike above in his seal to defend the indefensible.

But that didn't happen here, John. R1 had not yet reached second, a base to which he was entitled without liability to be put out.

What would you protest. Here is the rule reference.

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;

The rules don't support your claim. If F2 is throwing to F1 on ball 4 and the (B or B-R)'s interference allows R1 to advance to third will you allow the advance? By your interpretation, you'd have to.

Exactly the same as the play he's referencing. R1 had not reached 2nd yet when F2 made that throw either. EXACTLY the same scenario.

I have posted the rule above. On a 3-2 pitch with the runner running, the catcher cannot attempt to retire r1? He does not no the status of the pitch when he attempts to retire the runner. Suppose the b-r actually does interfere with the throw and that allows r1 to advance to third, will you allow that advance?

Can you cite the rule or just the "esteemed rules guru." This is an unusual play when many rules some at odds with others come into play. I don't think it is as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

No, because in your scenario here, that would have to be, as Bob stated, INtentional interference.

Seriously?

What makes this call, in particular unacceptable. What kind of mistakes fall into the acceptable and unacceptable categories for you? Does it depend on the level, situation, etc.

So you are for having judgment calls overturned. Suppose you miss a strike and the other three guys think it was a ball and you called it a strike, is it unacceptable for them to sustain that call? Does it matter the situation. Is it possible that the discussion was to insure that they got the ruling correct on the placement of the runners?

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...

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.

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?

Why not 8-5.d?

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 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.

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.

IYou 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.

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.

I think No and No.

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.

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.

So, which rule applies here?

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. :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?

Lets go back to the video.

ESPN Go to 58:39

Notice after the throw. PU is pointing and signaling the out, then goes 4 fingers up, ball 4. Then points to 1B. The conference and brouhaha doesn't continue until after the conference with Garrido. And if you watch further, you can see the PU make a reference to INT and Ball 4.

This is freaking awesome. See what great conversations we can have when we use the rules reference. Well done all.

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

I watched this a few more times, and all I can say is, "Wow." This was nothing short of a totally botched ruling. My original characterization of this being a 3rd trimester abortion stands.

Sorry, no it's not.

That's putting it mildly.

OK, I understand your reluctance to give me the rule reference. So, why couldn't it have been batter's interference? When on a 3-2 pitch with the R1 moving can the batter no longer be guilty of interference and why? Remember the catcher can not wait on a close pitch or check swing for the umpire's judgment before throwing to second. So if the batter or batter/runner can not be guilty of interference, does that mean on every three-two pitch that is ball four in this situation has carte blanche on his actions around the plate as long as they are not overtly intentional (eg grabbing the catcher's arm)?

Look at the other side of the argument as well. If you're going to give the catcher the BI here, why wouldn't a coach have the catcher make that errant throw everytime and get the out?

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.

Because he's no longer a batter. The instant ball four crossed the plate, he's a batter-runner.

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 :rolleyes:

+1

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..."

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.

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.

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?

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

Exactly.
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.

Wellllll,
 

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

Three pages and 95 posts later, can we bury the dead horse?

That was my thought when I saw his post....a rose amongst thorns.

Are you sure it's dead?

http://thecenekreport.squarespace.co...d_horse.jpg?__

And of course that makes him the final word, perfection personified.

Ooo... something we can agree on.

Seems ironic to me that Tim wants to simply go with the word of the one NCAA Regional umpire who has posted (honestly ... I don't know who that is, nor do I know whether he's agreed with 25, me, or neither!)... when it's the ruling and judgement of 4 other NCAA regional umpires that have brought about the question. I don't think we can assume the 1 is right, since it's obvious we're not assuming the 4 were right...