fpsr

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I have never called the "intentional interference on a double play", and I've umpire a variety of JO, adult slow and adult fast.

Called this once in 21 years, but it was a retired runner. 16A national, sharp hit to F6, flips to F4 who turns the DP slowly. Retired runner R1 slides late with her cleats hard into the shins of F4 and takes her down. I am U3; I call both outs.

UIC and leadership told me after the game it was a call I should have passed on. I still respectfully disagree. (Irish, this is the tournament on the East Coast where you and I met in person for the first time.)

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Called this once in 21 years, but it was a retired runner. 16A national, sharp hit to F6, flips to F4 who turns the DP slowly. Retired runner R1 slides late with her cleats hard into the shins of F4 and takes her down. I am U3; I call both outs.

UIC and leadership told me after the game it was a call I should have passed on. I still respectfully disagree. (Irish, this is the tournament on the East Coast where you and I met in person for the first time.)

You called INT because you considered the slide late, but would also endorse an INT call if the runner didn't slide and was hit by the throw?

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You called INT because you considered the slide late, but would also endorse an INT call if the runner didn't slide and was hit by the throw?

Interference, by rule, is an act that hinders a fielder from making a play. Sliding into a fielder is an act. Simply existing after being put out is not an act, in and of itself. A few years ago, NCAA got itself on a slippery slope on this ruling.

A retired runner cannot simply go "poof".

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Interference, by rule, is an act that hinders a fielder from making a play. Sliding into a fielder is an act. Simply existing after being put out is not an act, in and of itself. A few years ago, NCAA got itself on a slippery slope on this ruling.

A retired runner cannot simply go "poof".

NCAA doesn't expect the retired runner to go "poof". But they do expect the runner to make a reasonable attempt to slide when she gets to the base she is forced to reach, or to veer away after being retired. Going into the base standing up after obviously being retired on the front end of a DP shows intent to affect the fielder's throw to first base, at least according to the NCAA.

[jmkupka]

The "veering away" is an act. It's an act that cannot be anticipated by the fielder, and if it takes the runner into the path of a thrown ball, it should be called as INT.

Continuing upright (or legally sliding) directly toward 2b after being forced out should not be.

This I learned on this forum (from Irish ).

Please let me know if this conflicts with NCAA, 'cause I wanna get it right (in my 2nd year there).

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by jmkupka

The "veering away" is an act. It's an act that cannot be anticipated by the fielder, and if it takes the runner into the path of a thrown ball, it should be called as INT.

Continuing upright (or legally sliding) directly toward 2b after being forced out should not be.

This I learned on this forum (from Irish ).

Please let me know if this conflicts with NCAA, 'cause I wanna get it right (in my 2nd year there).

Sort of, and we have been down this road a lot.

There is a USA (Oct 2018 - on line) and NCAA (March 2019 - arbiter training tape) clarification of this play. I won't repeat them here because their words are very much their own.

My take: It is never "never" (Mike's side) or "always" (my former side). There are grey areas and you need to officiate and apply the definitions and appropriate rules. BTW - veering off can be a form of int and can also NOT be a form of int; staying in the base path CAN be a form of int and also can NOT be a form of int.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

staying in the base path CAN be a form of int and also can NOT be a form of int.

Staying on one's running route to a base should, in itself, never be an act of INT. Doing something different could be.

USA's interp from 2007 or 2009 NUIC clinic offered a sample play were simply being hit while running to 2B was not INT. Their counter-example was a just retired runner falling to the ground and getting back up and getting hit by the throw was as that was an act independent of simply attempting to advance.

It is the same philosophy for a batter interfering with a catcher's throw to 3B. If the batter stays where s/he belongs it is not INT if hit be a throw from the C. This had been, and still is, the philosophy for decades. If the batter is restricted to that certain spot, the catcher knows where s/he needs to make the throw. Why in the world would the same philosophy not apply on the base paths?

Have NCAA & NFHS deemed these players and coaches simply not smart enough to understand something so logical my dog can understand it?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Called this once in 21 years, but it was a retired runner. 16A national, sharp hit to F6, flips to F4 who turns the DP slowly. Retired runner R1 slides late with her cleats hard into the shins of F4 and takes her down. I am U3; I call both outs.

UIC and leadership told me after the game it was a call I should have passed on. I still respectfully disagree. (Irish, this is the tournament on the East Coast where you and I met in person for the first time.)

Not the same call. You call interference on a RETIRED runner which would have the effect of the runner closest to home as an out.

The call I referred to is when a RUNNER interferes with a double play opportunity and the trailing runner is called out.

The former is common; the latter I've never called.

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Called this once in 21 years, but it was a retired runner. 16A national, sharp hit to F6, flips to F4 who turns the DP slowly. Retired runner R1 slides late with her cleats hard into the shins of F4 and takes her down. I am U3; I call both outs.

UIC and leadership told me after the game it was a call I should have passed on. I still respectfully disagree. (Irish, this is the tournament on the East Coast where you and I met in person for the first time.)

At a NUS in Lewiston, Maine in 2014, we had a drill on calling the DP as the BU with a runner on first only.

As my turn was coming up, I overhead a technician tell the runner at first base to intentionally interfere with the fielder covering second base. So I thought I had a head's up on what was coming.

As the drill unfolded, there was a force out at second, and sure enough, the runner ran into the fielder. The throw to first was affected. Smart me called the out at second and then the BR out due to the INT by the retired runner.

Mr. JC said that was not the right call. After the call at second base, my focus should have been on the throw to first base. The PU would be responsible for making the INT call at second base.

[Manny A]

Originally Posted by teebob21

Called this once in 21 years, but it was a retired runner. 16A national, sharp hit to F6, flips to F4 who turns the DP slowly. Retired runner R1 slides late with her cleats hard into the shins of F4 and takes her down. I am U3; I call both outs.

UIC and leadership told me after the game it was a call I should have passed on.

Who would make that call then?

Since you said you were U3, I assume three-man with you being rotated, and U1 having responsibility for the play at first base. If that's the case, then I can't imagine who your "UIC and leadership" would say has the call at second base.

[CecilOne]

How about a why for either the national UIC or the NUS clinician?

[Tru_in_Blu]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Who would make that call then?

Since you said you were U3, I assume three-man with you being rotated, and U1 having responsibility for the play at first base. If that's the case, then I can't imagine who your "UIC and leadership" would say has the call at second base.

I'll guess that the suggestion was that it was a call that shouldn't have been made. I.E. The second out.

I'm thinking a clarification may be coming.

[teebob21]

Originally Posted by Manny A

Who would make that call then?

Since you said you were U3, I assume three-man with you being rotated, and U1 having responsibility for the play at first base. If that's the case, then I can't imagine who your "UIC and leadership" would say has the call at second base.

It was my call the whole way -- that's not what was in question. U3 rotated with R1 only has responsibility for the force at 2B and anything that happens after that.

I can understand being told that it wasn't a good get on the INT. F4 had plenty of time to move and throw from somewhere else...that said, a fielder with the ball doesn't have to go anywhere on the field she doesn't want to. When she got slid into and taken out by R1, I thought it was an easy call. At that point, it's down to philosophy and judgment.

I won't even bring up the UIC/leadership advice I got a year later regarding not calling and enforcing an IP for a pitcher with rock rosin that wasn't detected until after a runner was on base....