Auburn vs Georgia 4/2/17

[derwil]

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?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by derwil

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.

[MD Longhorn]

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.

[derwil]

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.

[Big Slick]

I think this rule is most appropriate here:

12.19.2 Interference by Runners
12.19.2.1.4 Physical contact by the runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so.

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.

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.

[Andy]

I think this rule is most appropriate here:

Quote:
12.19.2 Interference by Runners
12.19.2.1.4 Physical contact by the runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball or a foul ball that might become fair shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so.

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.
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......

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

[IRISHMAFIA]

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?"

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.