ASU v. Texas

[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.

[Dakota]

If that's the case, then this was entirely on the SS. She presumably has also been coached like this, and knew she should have more aggressively gone after the ball, runner be damned... (this was in reply to Andy)

[IRISHMAFIA]

I don't have an INT call for any rule set.

And Tom is correct in notating that some consideration should be given to this level of play

The runner was running and jumped over the ball which is permissible. The SS was not in position to field the ball. Was the runner's presence a distraction? Could be, but that isn't grounds for INT, the runner is supposed to be there and moving toward 3B.

Folks who do a lot of SP will tell you that when the player in question doesn't react like the rest of the team......it is usually a dead give away that nothing wrong happened.