Question from WCWS

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

So, that wasnt interference or obstruction, but then in the Notre Dame/ UA game they called a runner for interference who was in the baseline and had a ball thrown directly at her.

I'm sure I'm missing something, but you're losing me here. What's an INF call in the ND/UA game have to do with this call?

[RKBUmp]

Im not positive, but believe it was pretty much same umpiring crew in both games. In the North Dakota game you have a runner colliding with F4 who either was fielding, had in posession or had just muffed the play on the ball and the umpire apparently rules it as nothing more than a wreck.

Then in the Notre Dame, UA game, runner on 1, line drive in direction of F4. Runner has to hold for possibly fly out, but ball is short hopped by F4. F4 throws to F6 for the force at 2nd and R1 is no heading to 2nd directly in the baseline. F6 steps on 2nd and then throws directly at R1 and hits her. Crew gets together and rules interference on R1, now retired and calls BR out at 1st.

In the first game there was a definite collision and they rule nothing. In the 2nd game the runner was doing exactly what she should have been doing and was exactly where she should have been and they call her for interference. As has been repeated many times in various posts, the runner who has just been forced out cannot simply dissappear off the field.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Im not positive, but believe it was pretty much same umpiring crew in both games. In the North Dakota game you have a runner colliding with F4 who either was fielding, had in posession or had just muffed the play on the ball and the umpire apparently rules it as nothing more than a wreck.

Then in the Notre Dame, UA game, runner on 1, line drive in direction of F4. Runner has to hold for possibly fly out, but ball is short hopped by F4. F4 throws to F6 for the force at 2nd and R1 is no heading to 2nd directly in the baseline. F6 steps on 2nd and then throws directly at R1 and hits her. Crew gets together and rules interference on R1, now retired and calls BR out at 1st.

In the first game there was a definite collision and they rule nothing. In the 2nd game the runner was doing exactly what she should have been doing and was exactly where she should have been and they call her for interference. As has been repeated many times in various posts, the runner who has just been forced out cannot simply dissappear off the field.

So as to not to hijack this thread, maybe start another one regarding this play as it presents an interesting situation that I'm sure we all can learn from....as does the sitch in the OP that started this thread. The crew notwithstanding (and it was the same crew), while INF was an intrergal part of both plays, they are very different plays.

Do you know what inning of the ND/AZ the play occurred? I'd like to see the replay.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

So as to not to hijack this thread, maybe start another one regarding this play as it presents an interesting situation that I'm sure we all can learn from....as does the sitch in the OP that started this thread. The crew notwithstanding (and it was the same crew), while INF was an intrergal part of both plays, they are very different plays.

Do you know what inning of the ND/AZ the play occurred? I'd like to see the replay.

can anyone post the plays?

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

So as to not to hijack this thread, maybe start another one regarding this play as it presents an interesting situation that I'm sure we all can learn from....as does the sitch in the OP that started this thread. The crew notwithstanding (and it was the same crew), while INF was an intrergal part of both plays, they are very different plays.

Do you know what inning of the ND/AZ the play occurred? I'd like to see the replay.

It is around 1:17:30 on the replay at espn3 Best I can to right now.

IMO, this was a terrible call and even worse after all three got together and didn't reverse it. The runner was heading to 2B and once realized she was out started to check up and actually was trying to get out of the way of the throw by turning away. As hard as it may be to admit, the TH may have done better with the rule than the umpire crew.

[RKBUmp]

The play from the original post is at about the 39:20 mark in the replay on ESPN3. F4 doesnt field the ball cleanly, hits her in the stomach and rebounds forward slightly just when the runner contacts her.

[MD Longhorn]

I hate the term train wreck. With the current softball rules, just about the only remaining "train wreck" (as in ... a collision that is neither OBS or INT) is when a fielder who has already gained possession of the ball contacts a runner, but there is no tag. Most anything else that someone labels "train wreck" is now either OBS or INT.

Personally, I thought this was a bad no-call ... and then even worse, a horrible mistake allowing the runner to score. We expect better from these guys.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I hate the term train wreck. With the current softball rules, just about the only remaining "train wreck" (as in ... a collision that is neither OBS or INT) is when a fielder who has already gained possession of the ball contacts a runner, but there is no tag. Most anything else that someone labels "train wreck" is now either OBS or INT....

This is NCAA... they still have the "about to receive" clause, don't they?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Personally, I thought this was a bad no-call ... and then even worse, a horrible mistake allowing the runner to score.

Let's put the part in red aside for a moment, and for this discussion let's set aside wether or not we're in agreement with U1's judgement of the play being a wreck or INF.

What I see on the video....
He reads the play, waits a second, decides he has a wreck, gives a clear and emphatic safe signal, two players are down, all hell is about to break loose, he keeps his head and focus, stays with the play, and is on top of the tag play for the out on the NDSC runner who was sprawled on the ground and crawling trying to reach 2nd base, then immediately has the Hawaii HC in his face arguing the call, handles himself well during the argument, then ejects the coach calmly and professionally.
All in all, IMO I thought it was a damm good piece of umpiring on his part.....there was a lot of stuff going on all in rapid fire.

Now the part in red. Agree, 100% a horrible mistake.

How could it have been avoided is my question? And I raise the question not to be judgmental on the crew, but to try to learn from their error. I mean lets be honest, this could happen to any one of us. I think in this particular situation, especially with not having been involved in the play, or any part of the argument and subsequent ejection, that if I'm the PU I've got to take the responsibility here.

Being as how the out at 2nd was the third out of the inning, ESPN broke away for a commercial. So we have know way of knowing what (if anything) the crew did during the time between innings.

And think about this......why/how didn't a "red flag" go up with any (of I'm sure numerous) game administrative personnel entering all the game info into a computerized box score, inning by inning, Game Track, etc. programs or on-site NCAA game staff.....or for that matter the Hawaii coaching staff?

Lots of knowledgeable people missed this......not just the umpiring crew.

Thoughts?

[ronald]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

The play from the original post is at about the 39:20 mark in the replay on ESPN3. F4 doesnt field the ball cleanly, hits her in the stomach and rebounds forward slightly just when the runner contacts her.

thanks