LLWS - Washington / Connecticut
 

Well........

Did they get it right ???????

I'm thinking train wreck but the result was the same - an out and a runner on third.

Based on that description, I'd say it's a HTBT, so I'd side with the umpires.

Oh, wait -- you said LLWS. I might change my mind.

Yep, I've got a train wreck, and, as Rich said, same result, except original R2 is now on 3B and R3 is out in the pickle.

To me, using CS&FP rule book, both F6 and R2 were doing what they were supposed to.

Did anyone see the "sitting" tag at 2B? R1. 1 out. B1 grounds to F3, who steps on first in plenty of time and throws to F6 at 2B. He applies tag (which looked to be an out) and his glove his tucked under R1's leg for a good second or two. When he tries to show ball to U2, the rock squirts out. U2 calls out, then safe.

I am leaning toward an out here. F6 was trying to show the ball. R1 did not kick it out or anything of the sort. Verrrrrrry interesting. I'm hoping a Jacksa-Roder expert will check in.

Ace

Guys on another board are of the opinion that F6 is afforded some protection on an already fielded ball, and I have not heard what protection they feel he should be given. He has possession of the ball, the runner has the lane, and a fielder with a ball coming at him would cause the runner to stop or try to go around, but he is not obligated to do either by rule. Was F6 trying to throw the ball home when R2 hit him?

The Video
 

Video is here.
Connecticut Wins Thriller In LLWS - ESPN Video - ESPN

<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?playerBrandingId=4ef8000cbaf34c1687a7d9a 26fe0e89e&adSetCode=91cDU6NuXTGKz3OdjOxFdAgJVtQcKJ nI&pcode=1kNG061cgaoolOncv54OAO1ceO-I&width=576&height=324&externalId=espn:9595510&thr uParam_espn-ui[autoPlay]=false&thruParam_espn-ui[playRelatedExternally]=true"></script>

You will have to deal with a commercial first. (Video will start at 1:40, which is the start of the play in question.)

I have a train wreck, I don't see the fielder getting protection while running around the infield with a ball.

2.00—Definitions of Terms.

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

INTERFERENCE (a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

Obstruction? NO (you cannot obstruct if you possess the ball).
Interference? Maybe technically because it states "A PLAY" not just "A THROW" (you could be attempting to make a play while running around with the ball). I would not have called it here. I think "Train Wreck...play on" is the proper ruling here.

That is the key to this judgement call. If you judge the fielder was making a play when he was hit by R2, then you have interference. I couldn't tell from the video clip where the fielder was thinking about making a play.

Good point. I would say he was running with the ball thinking about making a play, not actually making one.

If the SS would have tagged the runner instead of running into him that might have been a good idea:-)

It looked to me the ball might have very well been kicked out judging from the F6's reaction.

What other board? Evans' board has turned into Smittyville. Haven't looked over there in a long time.

Dead ball. Interference. And I dont even see a coach coming to question / complain. No brainer.

Umpire Empire