Texas - ASU game 3

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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

[etn_ump]

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...

[eastdavis]

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?

[bkbjones]

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.

[umpjim]

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.

[mbyron]

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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

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.

[umpjim]

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.

[t-rex]

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.

http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2011/06/12/texas_arizona_s_1.html?cxntfid=blogs_bevo_beat

Thank you in advance.

[MikeStrybel]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by t-rex

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.

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.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by mbyron

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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by MrUmpire

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.