Obstruction, or let them play?

roadking

jmkupka wrote
Never saw a runner just "standing" in a baseline, after having been put out by 20' at 2B.
BUT, said runner, running in that direct path from 1B to 2B, getting hit by the thrown ball after being put out at 2B (by any distance), won't be called for INT by me unless she performs an act of INT (i.e. steps into the thrown ball after running wide of the line between 1B & 2B, or falls down then stands up into the throw)

I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

IRISHMAFIA

roadking wrote
I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

You are correct, and IMO, both calls were absolutely terrible and actually gives the defense a reason to go head-hunting. And let me know when you can find a rule to support those calls.

MD Longhorn

roadking wrote
I completely see Esqump argument. I believe if you watched the college super regionals 2 years ago, in separate games there was two different runners beamed in the head that where advancing to 2nd, both we're put out on a force then called for interference on the double play throw attempt. Both runners where doing what they should of been doing, they could not just go poof and disappear. Unfortunatly, I believe the fielders we're coached to throw intentionally at the runners.
But hey, how can you assume intent?

If you were posting here around that time, you would have seen how unanimously those calls were hailed as incorrect.

roadking

MD Longhorn wrote
If you were posting here around that time, you would have seen how unanimously those calls were hailed as incorrect.

I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?

IRISHMAFIA

roadking wrote
I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?

Unless there is something else contradicting this, "intent" is required with a thrown ball:

12.8.5 When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball,
interferes with a fielder attempting to throw the ball or intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.
EFFECT—The ball is dead. The batter-runner is awarded first base unless
she is the player in violation. If the official scorer judges the
batted ball would have been a hit, the batter is credited with a
base hit, but if not, it is scored as a fielder’s choice. Each base
runner not forced by the batter-runner must return to the last
base legally touched at the time of the interference.
If the interference, in the umpire’s judgment, is an obvious
attempt to prevent a double play and occurs before the base
runner is put out, the runner being played on shall also be called
out.

MD Longhorn

roadking wrote
I would agree, I dont like the interference call, but I could not judge if the defensive player intentionally threw at the runner.
By NCAA rule set the interference was correct call if you have no intent to throw at runner?

Incorrect. In no ruleset do you have to judge the intent of the thrower. You only have to judge the actions of the runner. If the runner's actions caused interference, you call it. Running straight toward the bag without deviating and getting hit by a throw is not interference. In any ruleset.

IRISHMAFIA

MD Longhorn wrote
Incorrect. In no ruleset do you have to judge the intent of the thrower. You only have to judge the actions of the runner. If the runner's actions caused interference, you call it. Running straight toward the bag without deviating and getting hit by a throw is not interference. In any ruleset.

Well, let's not be too inclusive in that statement. If you "know" a fielder is throwing AT the runner, not a team mate, and the runner reaches up to defend themselves you have "intent" on both parties, but I'm not calling INT. 🙂

« Previous Page