Auburn vs Georgia 4/2/17

[Scooby]

I believe that the call of no interference is the correct call. NCAA allows the umpire to signal safe on play that are possible OBS or INT, I think it this would have been the ideal situation to use that signal.

[jmkupka]

So it's actually possible for F6, fielding the ball, to get an OBS called against her?
In an effort to get a feel for the runner's position, F6 throws her hand back (more aggressively than seen here), all in the same motion as gloving the batted ball.
And to remove any gray area as to her throwing intentions, say F6 does make the (late) throw to F3.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

So it's actually possible for F6, fielding the ball, to get an OBS called against her?

No

In an effort to get a feel for the runner's position, F6 throws her hand back (more aggressively than seen here), all in the same motion as gloving the batted ball.
And to remove any gray area as to her throwing intentions, say F6 does make the (late) throw to F3.

When there was no possibility to get an out, so there is no play with which to interfere.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

So it's actually possible for F6, fielding the ball, to get an OBS called against her?

No one said that. It is not possible for F6 to be called for OBS in her INITIAL attempt to field the ball.

We don't have to do the whole step and a reach argument here. I only put INITIAL to head off that tangent.

[jmkupka]

Understood... just wondered if it was possible, with a simultaneous action (fielding the ball, and pushing a runner that she wasn't attempting to put out) to get an OBS. I see that it is not.

[Dakota]

I guess 24" violations are ignored in the SEC.

[Manny A]

That discussion with Coach Myers took way too long. He certainly deserves to be heard, but for crying out loud, he had to have been told after the first umpire get-together, and then after talking with Jana at third, of the reason for a No Call. End it there, coach.

As for the call, I might've gone the other way and rule interference. My rationale: this wasn't a situation where the runner had to advance (no force), and the ball was hit to the left side. Runners from an early age are told to hold and let that ball go through before trying to advance to third on a ball in front of them. If she was forced to advance, I might go with a No Call in that her action was "appropriate to the situation". Without needing to advance, she has no business causing contact with the fielder.

But, of course, that's the benefit of watching the play over and over, and being able to think about it. In real time, I certainly have no issue with the No Call since it did look like the runner tried to avoid contact with the shortstop, and once the shortstop fielded the ball, she looked toward first base initially, where there was no play possibility.

It all boils down to judgment.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Manny A

As for the call, I might've gone the other way and rule interference. My rationale: this wasn't a situation where the runner had to advance (no force), and the ball was hit to the left side. Runners from an early age are told to hold and let that ball go through before trying to advance to third on a ball in front of them. If she was forced to advance, I might go with a No Call in that her action was "appropriate to the situation". Without needing to advance, she has no business causing contact with the fielder.

I don't think I can agree with strategy or technique affecting the rule.