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...