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.

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:

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?

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

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)

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.

These morons just don't know when to quit.

Tonight, it is all about contact. "The umpire didn't see contact, so there was no interference".

If the umpire did call INT, they would be whining, that shouldn't be INT because there wasn't contact.

When is ESPN going to realize that these ladies are not helping the cause? Oh, wait a minute, the Mouse doesn't care.

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.

Thank you Mike.....as a UT alum also.......I was a little dismayed seeing that this thread was about the Aggies instead of the Lady Longhorns........d;-)

As much as I hate the aggies........I usually don't allow it to go into the womens sports........

That being said........I did have a tough time rooting for the lady Gators today......I usually despise the Florida sports teams.........but, again.......I tried to not allow my prejudice to flow into the womens' team sports. (Sorry to Wade and Hugo)

I coached a pitcher that played for the Ducks a few years back.......I think it was the first team from there that that had ever been to the Regionals.......she was a little **** (actually about 6'2"....so she wasn't little, but still a ****).....so I cried no tears when they did not make it to the Super Regionals.......

One of my other girls is playing for Kentucky this year........she will not play as a Freshman, but just getting there is an honor.

Joel

I looked at this pay and I just do not see INT.