fpsr

[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?

[CecilOne]

woof, woof