Auburn vs Georgia 4/2/17
 

Link here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVadxyJAaDQ

Forward to bottom of 4th @ 1:24

Tidwell has the call as U3. I think she's been to WCWS before. I believe I would have an out, but intrigued by her no call....of anything. Think you have to have Int or Obs.

Maybe her thought was that it didn't interfere with the SS's ability to reasonably make a play and she gave up on the play after contact?

Opinions?

I don't do NCAA, so maybe they have something there that makes a difference. But speaking other codes, obstruction is off the table, this is the initial play on the ball. So you have interference or you have nothing. I don't see the runner do anything. The only reason there's any contact at all is the fielder reaching out to find the runner and that didn't keep her from fielding the ball at all.

It's entirely possible, considering the height of that ball, that BR is at or very close to first, and the runner didn't interfere with a play anywhere, in the umpire's judgement. I wish we could see where BR was.

The runner going to first is either there or almost there. She's leading the SEC in batting @ .500. Think there is a play at third, however, with the runner that she hits.

I think this rule is most appropriate here:

The emphasis is how it appears in the rule book.

IMO, the drawn in infield and moving back towards the ball and the runner moving towards the outfield as the ball is being played is "appropriate to the situation". I think no call is correct.

What?!?!? Nothing in that rule about "making a throw"?

I'm really disappointed in the ESPN announcers quoting something "from the rule book" that is inaccurate......:eek:

I agree with BS....I see a big fat nothing on this play...

Yep, let me pile on here. There was no play with which to INT. The SS simply stopped playing and if she missed the opportunity to make an out, it was of her own doing.

"BTW, coach, if I saw INT, I would have called INT. The fact that I did not makes my position quite obvious, don't you think?"

:)

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

I guess 24" violations are ignored in the SEC.

When the announcer quoted the rule about a throw being necessary, I am sure she was referring to (incorrectly) the batter/runner going to first. The first time I heard her I did not catch her saying "batter/runner".

I have difficulty with the no call. I thought it was clearly interference on the part of the runner. Matters not whether it was intentional (which it appeared not to be). I agree that strategy should not be considered. Now, did the fielder have a "reasonable chance to make a play"? Does she have a rocket arm or just average. Gwarsh, does it make a difference? It appears that, interference or no, she would have had difficulty throwing the ball with any zip. However, I still think interference should have been called.

Her arm makes no difference ... but the location of BR when this happened certainly does (and we cannot see that from the video, but I did look up who the player was and she's fast). Clearly the umpire (who had the whole play in front of them) saw where BR was when F6 fielded the ball and did not think there was a play.

The only play F6 had was at third after R2 stumbled, and she didn't even look in that direction. I'm going with "reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so." The only thing that prevented her from a play was that she didn't even look for the only play she had.

The rule says prevents fielder from making a "play" Isn't fielding the ball, making a play? The rule doesn't say prevents fielder from getting an "out"
Dave

the book says, "provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a
play and was prevented from doing so."

Goes on to say, "Note: If both players’ actions are appropriate to the situation and contact could not be avoided, it is inadvertent contact and neither interference nor obstruction."

Providing the B/R is as fast as it seems, I think both entries protect the runner in this case.

That is the rule; you are correct. I don't see where the runner interfered or hindered the fielder from making the play, e.g. fielding that high chopper. Good no-call, not so good game management dealing with the coach. Too many conferences and too many minutes debating a judgment call. Warn him and move on.