Your call decided the game, Blue!

[Hoosier_Dave]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

I had a SP semifinals game where I, indeed, cost them the game. Bottom of the 7th, home team is down by 1 or 2, one out. R1 on 3rd, R2 on 1st. I'm BU.

The batter hits the ball to the shortstop, who easily flips it to the F4 for the force out at 2nd. F4 turns and throws to F3 to go for the double play, but the throw was off and bounces off the fence. R2, who was already out, is about 10' off 2nd base, looking like he's still in the game (best way to describe it was that it looked like he was surfing). F3, confused, throws back to F4. R2 dives back into 2nd.

"DEAD BALL!"

R1, who never advanced from (edited from "left from") 3rd, is now out. By the way, that's 3 outs. Ball game.

Boy did I catch hell for that one. Home team protested, but they lost. For those who want me to cite rules, in ASA, it's 8-7-P. I don't even have my book on me today. That game will never leave me.

I'm confused. You called interference on a non-player (R2) which made R1 out because he was the lead runner. Where was the interference? Seems to me that F3 made a judgement error.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by Hoosier_Dave

I'm confused. You called interference on a non-player (R2) which made R1 out because he was the lead runner. Where was the interference? Seems to me that F3 made a judgement error.

A runner who was already put out who draws a throw is an example of interference. F3 made the judgment error because R2 was behaving like he was still a runner in the game. Thus, the runner closest to home (R1) is out. Again, 8-7-P. Read the note below it.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

A runner who was already put out who draws a throw is an example of interference. F3 made the judgment error because R2 was behaving like he was still a runner in the game. Thus, the runner closest to home (R1) is out. Again, 8-7-P. Read the note below it.

I believe what Dave is asking is, was there actually a play with which the act caused interference.

The rule note states that drawing a throw MAY be INT, not that it actually is INT. The rule states the the act has to INT with the defense's ability to make a play on another runner. If there were no other runner's moving, or in jeopardy, there was no play with which to INT.

Modified to change reference

[NCASAUmp]

R1 (originally at 3rd) had advanced off the bag enough that a play could have been made on him.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

R1 (originally at 3rd) had advanced off the bag enough that a play could have been made on him.

Huh? You said he DIDN'T advance. Now I'm REALLY lost.

[NCASAUmp]

Let me clarify... R1 moved off the bag enough that F3 could have thrown him out, but did not go all the way for home. He was about 15' off the bag. F3 saw R2 first, got confused, and threw to F4 since he was closer and figured he had a better shot at getting him than R1.

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I believe what Tom is asking is, was there actually a play with which the act caused interference.

Now I am confused. I see a Dave asking a question, not a Tom.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Now I am confused. I see a Dave asking a question, not a Tom.

You are right. Thanks, I changed it to avoid confusion for those umpire who read this 1,000 years from now when they open the cyber time capsule.

[IamMatt]

Did you see this post on eteamz? This blue could have decided the game!

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by IamMatt

Did you see this post on eteamz? This blue could have decided the game!

Nah, his partner did before the first pitch was thrown. 7-0.

Bad idea for the blue to field the ball, though. What if one of the girls turned their head at the last second and caught it in the face?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Now I am confused. I see a Dave asking a question, not a Tom.

I guess he just expects Tom to ask that question.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I believe what Dave is asking is, was there actually a play with which the act caused interference.

The rule note states that drawing a throw MAY be INT, not that it actually is INT. The rule states the the act has to INT with the defense's ability to make a play on another runner. If there were no other runner's moving, or in jeopardy, there was no play with which to INT.

Modified to change reference

Do you think it could/would be interfering with a play if F3 ignored R1 and R3 because R2 looked like the easiest out? IOW, good judgement about the best play, just not recognizing R2 was out because of R2's actions.

[NCASAUmp]

Originally Posted by CecilOne

Do you think it could/would be interfering with a play if F3 ignored R1 and R3 because R2 looked like the easiest out? IOW, good judgement about the best play, just not recognizing R2 was out because of R2's actions.

Asking me? Or everyone else?

I felt that R2 was intentionally (this was 2 years ago, so intent is required) distracting F3, drawing a throw to second base. R1, who was already 10-15' off 3rd, saw the ball go to 2nd, and was getting ready to haul butt home. However, I killed the play before he got far, because the interference had already taken place.

Did that paint a clearer picture of what happened?

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Asking me? Or everyone else?

I felt that R2 was intentionally (this was 2 years ago, so intent is required) distracting F3, drawing a throw to second base. R1, who was already 10-15' off 3rd, saw the ball go to 2nd, and was getting ready to haul butt home. However, I killed the play before he got far, because the interference had already taken place.

Did that paint a clearer picture of what happened?

Anyone who wants to answer, but specifically the quote "Posted by IRISHMAFIA".

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by NCASAUmp

Asking me? Or everyone else?

I felt that R2 was intentionally (this was 2 years ago, so intent is required) distracting F3, drawing a throw to second base. R1, who was already 10-15' off 3rd, saw the ball go to 2nd, and was getting ready to haul butt home. However, I killed the play before he got far, because the interference had already taken place.

Did that paint a clearer picture of what happened?

Yes, this answered the question asked as to where there was a possible play for INT.