Your call??

[soundedlikeastrike]

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?

[UMP45]

Originally Posted by charliej47

Bob,

I argued with several interpreters here in Ohio and they all stated that if the fielder has to take a step to pick up a miss-played ball, then he is not protected.

Then they shouldn't be interpreters!

[Matt]

Originally Posted by soundedlikeastrike

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?

Impossible. OBR doesn't have MC.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

Regarding the OP and NCAA, NCAA goes so far as to protect a fielder who misplays a batted ball, chases after it, and then is in the act of picking it up.


A.R. 5—If a fielder chases after a deflected batted ball ahead of a runner’s arrival and is in the act of picking up the ball (fielding) when contact is made by an offensive player, interference is the call. If the fielder is chasing after the deflected batted ball and contact is made between the two players, obstruction should be the call.

I think, based on how NCAA protects the fielder in that case, that they also want to protect the fielder in the OP and INT should have been called. If you want to slo mo and parse the rules to justify the no call be my guest.

This AR actually supports a call of obstruction more than interference in this case. The only time a fielder is protected under the plain language of it is during the initial misplay and if he's actually in the motion of picking up the ball. This AR supports a call of interference only if the act of fielding simply means the fielder has come within a step and a reach of the ball.

[umpjim]

Originally Posted by Matt

This AR actually supports a call of obstruction more than interference in this case. The only time a fielder is protected under the plain language of it is during the initial misplay and if he's actually in the motion of picking up the ball. This AR supports a call of interference only if the act of fielding simply means the fielder has come within a step and a reach of the ball.

I'm a little confused. The AR I posted really does not have relevance to the OP other than that I believe NCAA leans toward protecting the fielder. I have seen MLB plays where the pitcher pulls up to avoid getting trucked and no call was made. That's their rules. In this case, I think NCAA wants to protect the fielder and avoid what happened next. We will see what they think. In any case if you think it was obstruction the crew had no call. I'm not good enough to think I would have thought quick enough to get it right in that sit.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by umpjim

I'm a little confused. The AR I posted really does not have relevance to the OP other than that I believe NCAA leans toward protecting the fielder. I have seen MLB plays where the pitcher pulls up to avoid getting trucked and no call was made. That's their rules. In this case, I think NCAA wants to protect the fielder and avoid what happened next. We will see what they think. In any case if you think it was obstruction the crew had no call. I'm not good enough to think I would have thought quick enough to get it right in that sit.

No, I think it was interference, and that the AR you cite isn't relevant at all. What I am saying is if someone wants to use the AR as dicta for this play, that it only covers the fielder at the start and end of the situation, narrowly tailoring his protection. Given that the fielder was contacted while in a futile tag attempt not in possession of the ball, this AR would not protect him: he's not in the initial misplay and he's not bending over to pick up the ball.

[johnnyg08]

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.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

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.

I figured it wasn't MTD, Sr. He would've written about a thousand more words.

[soundedlikeastrike]

Originally Posted by Matt

Impossible. OBR doesn't have MC.

Stands for "my call", no. But, all youth/amateur OBR based leagues I've been associated, have something to toss a player for crashing somebody..

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.

[JJ]

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

[DG]

Originally Posted by JJ

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

According to box score, "Top 8th - UF Zack Powers & Danny Young; FSU's DJ Stewart - ejected Bot 8th - UF Justin Shafer - ejected"

Powers was F3, Young F1, Stewart BR. Shafer was a pitcher so he must have done something in bottom 8th to get EJ.

[bob jenkins]

The NCAA video has this play and says that the umpires should have ruled interference.

[dash_riprock]

There was no doubt it was INT. The question was, did the contact violate some other rule, and the answer is no.