need help on NCAA new rule for runner leaving early

[topper]

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by topper

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

SHHHHH...some college coach may hear you and propose this as a rule change......

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

Couldn't the same reasoning be applied to INT as well? The rule requires a fielder to be prevented from making a play, so why not have it signalled as a DDB as well to see if they actually were prevented?. I would venture to say that more double plays are prevented by killing plays for INT than leaving early.

And it could ASSUMING just about everything that happens afterward would have happened had the umpire not declared it a dead ball.

But you run into the same set of convoluted issues if you try to extend the play. You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

You think you have umpires in different areas, hell, in the same area come up with some TWP rulings now? Not a real big fan of KISS the band, but definitely KISS, the acronym.

Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

Sorry, TWP?

Not a real big fan of either the band or the acronym when it comes to umpiring.

IMO, the ASSUMPTION is made when an umpire declares the dead ball. Say R1 bumps into F6 while a looping line drive is in the air. BU declares dead ball, then F6 catches the ball before BU is able to call INT. What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling? Was she prevented from making the play?

Interference does not (in any case I'm aware of) require the prevention of making a play. It just requires interference with a play.

[topper]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Interference does not (in any case I'm aware of) require the prevention of making a play. It just requires interference with a play.

NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?

[tcannizzo]

TWP = Third World Play - bordering on the absurd...

[topper]

Thanks, Tony. Second new term I've learned this month on here. The other was "meeb".

Now if Mike could explain what he meant by it, I would appreciate it.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by topper

NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?

fair enough. So revise my statement to "in this case". In MOST cases of interference, you don't wait to see of a play can be made anyway - you call it when it happens.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by topper

NCAA 2010-2011 Rules and Interpretations:

12.19.1.4 "Physical contact by the base runner with a fielder attempting to field a fair batted ball shall be interference, provided the fielder had a reasonable chance to make a play and was prevented from doing so."

Now you are aware of at least one. Honestly, why even post your statement at all if you don't know?

I don't buy this as a "requirement". This paragraph is offered as one of many examples of what could be interference on the runner. And the quantifier is that there must be a chance for the fielder to make a play.

What explanation would be given to the DC to justify the INT ruling?

See above. In my judgment, if I believed the fielder was interfered with, that is what I will call. Simply because one did something which others may believe "could" have been INT, doesn't make it so.

In your play, maybe F6 does make the catch, but maybe the catch could have been more routine had their not been INT. But maybe she doesn't make the catch, but ends up trying to turn a deuce, but throws the ball into the stands and the BR is OBS by F3, and R1 plows over an unsuspecting F5 and is then picked up by the 3B coach and pushed towards home while F9 just went into labor and is down in RCF.......

T.W.P. We can all try to justify anything we want regardless of which way we prefer to slant it, but I believe we are better off as is. At least, until you can find the perfect, intelligent umpire that will not screw up a call. Like to admit it or not, there are umpires working all levels of ball that are somewhat clueless and misapply some of the simplest rules in the book. How in the world can a team expect any consistency from an umpire if so many "what if's" are available on what should be a simple play.

My vote goes for the ruling to remain an immediate dead ball.

[topper]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I don't buy this as a "requirement". This paragraph is offered as one of many examples of what could be interference on the runner. And the quantifier is that there must be a chance for the fielder to make a play.

It is an example that specifies what constitutes INT when there is physical contact between runner and fielder, ending in "and was prevented from doing so." I would consider it a requirement. The other examples deal with specifics of other runner violations.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

See above. In my judgment, if I believed the fielder was interfered with, that is what I will call.

The coach may then ask for you to support it in the rule book if the play were made.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

In your play, maybe F6 does make the catch, but maybe the catch could have been more routine had their not been INT. But maybe she doesn't make the catch, but ends up trying to turn a deuce, but throws the ball into the stands and the BR is OBS by F3, and R1 plows over an unsuspecting F5 and is then picked up by the 3B coach and pushed towards home while F9 just went into labor and is down in RCF........

There are rules covering that as well

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Like to admit it or not, there are umpires working all levels of ball that are somewhat clueless and misapply some of the simplest rules in the book.

No argument here.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

My vote goes for the ruling to remain an immediate dead ball.

Fair enough. Perhaps some re-wording of the rule would make that more supportable.