ASU v. Texas
 

Was that interference in your opinion?

Not by rule.

I had INT all the way.

ESPN3 video Go to 2:23:30

Youtube video recorded from Iphone

Watch for when the TAMU coach approaches the umpire. From my limited lip reading it looks like he says something about "contact for that call" because the TAMU coach then asks her player about contact.

Video from the NCAA website...good replay at about the 1:20 mark.

Video - 52611_ASU_TAM - NCAA.com

The TH gives R2 credit for avoiding contact implying that is the reason for no INT.:confused:

First off, as a Texas grad... TAMU is NOT Texas. It's Texas A&M - the University of Texas's largest or 2nd largest rival.

As much as I hate to say it - as I despise the Aggies... that was definitely interference.

So I ask all those who have INT:

Based on what NCAA rule?

From the center field camera replay, it looks like there very well may have been contact with the fielders glove with her right knee. Also, by the NCAA rule, she can run in front of the fielder or jump over the ball. The runner stopped directly in front of the fielder, looks to have possibly made contact with her glove, then jumps the ball and continues to run.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.