ASU v. Texas

[topper]

Originally Posted by txump81

12.9.7
The base runner is out:
When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball...

I also agree with RKB. The runner stopped in front of F6 then took off.

I'm afraid that's not good enough. You'll need to cite the INT rule for 12.9.7 to work here.

[CelticNHBlue]

I have no INT:

1 - runner appears to be aware of the SS and (IMO) is attempting to avoid her and the ball (apparently successfully), she is not intentionally stopping to hinder the SSs view of the ball

2 - SS plays the ball timidly and not aggressively, IMO she elected to play the ball at a location that took her behind the runners path (as opposed to charging through the runners path), because of this the runner did not impact the ability of the fielder to play the ball

[Snocatzdad]

Originally Posted by CelticNHBlue

I have no INT:

1 - runner appears to be aware of the SS and (IMO) is attempting to avoid her and the ball (apparently successfully), she is not intentionally stopping to hinder the SSs view of the ball

Does NCAA take into account intent or just the fact that she is hindering her view of the ball??

2 - SS plays the ball timidly and not aggressively, IMO she elected to play the ball at a location that took her behind the runners path (as opposed to charging through the runners path), because of this the runner did not impact the ability of the fielder to play the ball

So penalize the SS for avoiding a collision caused by the baserunner being where she wants to go. Is there a "two for flinching" (in this case 2 runs) rule in NCAA ball?

[Skahtboi]

Originally Posted by txump81

12.9.7
The base runner is out:
When she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball...

I also agree with RKB. The runner stopped in front of F6 then took off.

Originally Posted by topper

I'm afraid that's not good enough. You'll need to cite the INT rule for 12.9.7 to work here.

Going by 12.19, this could be interference. Of course, it all comes down to the judgment of the umpires on the field. The ball appeared to be playable, and it could easily be argued that the runner denied the defender the opportunity to make a play on the ball. But, it can also be argued that the fielder just muffed what should have been a routine play. Apparently, that is how the umpires working the game felt.

[topper]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

Going by 12.19, this could be interference.

What part of 12.19 leads you to believe this could be INT?

[Tex]

Try to visualize this play from from the 3rd base umpire's view. I did not have interference per rule 12.19.1.4.2.

[DOG310]

2010 and 2011 NCAA SOFTBALL RULES AND INTERPRETATIONS

12.19.1.4.2 Merely running in front of the fielder or jumping over the
ball while proceeding to the next base is not interference, even
though it may be distracting to the fielder or screen her view of the
ball. The runner may not at any time unnecessarily wave her arms
or verbally distract the fielder.

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

12-9-7 ... if she'd not intentionally stopped in front of the fielder, I have nothing... it was the stop (or intentional slow down at minimum) that leads me to calling INT here. .

Just to save me from typing it again:

Originally Posted by topper

I'm afraid that's not good enough. You'll need to cite the INT rule for 12.9.7 to work here.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

Just to save me from typing it again:

I know you have more experience than me with this rule-set. Maybe instead of just saying we're wrong you can explain why. It appears to me that this runner was not "merely running in front of the fielder", but rather slowed intentionally to make the play more difficult. I see the other side of it, and realize it's judgement - but if the umpire on the spot agreed with me ... would it still not be interference?

[txump81]

I'll paraphrase 12.19.1.4.2...

Merely running in front of the fielder or jumping the ball is not interference.

It is the stop in front if the fielder that gets the INT in my judgement.

[MD Longhorn]

Isn't that what I said, yet am being told I'm wrong?

[JefferMC]

I don't think she actually stopped in front of F6. She took two fast steps off the bag on the pitch, then slowed to see where the ball was going. Since F6 was in her way, she made a couple of shuffle steps towards 3B--granted staying in the vicinity of where F6 should field the ball--but avoided contact with the ball and the fielder.

I suppose the case could be made that she could have given F6 a wider berth, but unless the NCAA wants to start putting a clear-zone in feet/inches the runner has to avoid...

[Andy]

I will throw something else out there....

The level of ball is probably something to be considered as well.

Would this play be interference at 12u or 14u - almost certainly

16u or 18u - maybe....

NCAA - almost never.

I do not have near the NCAA experience that some do, but one of the things I have been told is that at that level, contact is almost always required for an interference call. The coaches know this and they coach runners to get as close as possible short of contact hoping for exactly what happened in the game.

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I know you have more experience than me with this rule-set. Maybe instead of just saying we're wrong you can explain why. It appears to me that this runner was not "merely running in front of the fielder", but rather slowed intentionally to make the play more difficult. I see the other side of it, and realize it's judgement - but if the umpire on the spot agreed with me ... would it still not be interference?

The runner is required to avoid the runner and being hit by the ball. If in doing this, which is what I saw last night, she slows down and blocks the view of the fielder, so be it. The book doesn't say how fast a runner must be going when passing in front of the fielder.

This was a case of the ss needing to move to the ball regardless of the runner so that the runner can't avoid her or she simply makes the play. If she does that, it would be A&M up 1-0.