I agree with INT and MC, from OBR stand point.
F1 didn't get a chance to pick up the ball as he was trying to protect himself IMO, INT. Then the purposeful contact, MC. Good base running IMO would have taken the runner outside and into foul territory in a valid attempt to reach the base, which he'd a probably made. I do find it interesting that both PU and BU simultaneously signaled safe as in nothing there? Did the box score indicate if a runner was allowed to take the ejected runners place at 1B? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I think it's important to read the AR's for Interference and Obstruction. Both definitions have AR's that protect the fielder on a ball that is within a step and a reach. In fact I think it's AR 3 under obstruction that states if the ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder the fielder is to be considered in the act of fielding.
|
Taking over my dad's account for a moment (he should stick to basketball lol)
NCAA Rule 2-50-A.R. 3 If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called. Therefore, IMO this should have been INT. Mark, Jr. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Apologies if the term MC doesn't fit, just handy.. The OP, in my game would get you tossed, simply for the un-sportsmanship-ness of it, this ain't hockey fella's. There will always be train wrecks, this ain't one. Still wanna know why at a minimum no INT? Maybe the angle they had it appeared F1 was giving up on the ball? But looked purely defensive to me, in my book, INT regardless of the contact. I mean you fake a karate chop at a guy trying to field a ball, I don't care if you touch him or not you probably interfered. |
Can anyone post the ultimate ruling(s) from the NCAA? Who/how many got dumped and who/how many were suspended?
Looked to me like a LOT of folks "joined the fight"... JJ |
Quote:
Powers was F3, Young F1, Stewart BR. Shafer was a pitcher so he must have done something in bottom 8th to get EJ. |
The NCAA video has this play and says that the umpires should have ruled interference.
|
There was no doubt it was INT. The question was, did the contact violate some other rule, and the answer is no.
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:51am. |