Question from WCWS

[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?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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

But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.

And I'm pretty sure that refers to a thrown ball, not a batted ball.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

But that applies if the runner deviates (reacts, slows, etc) while the ball is closer to the fielder than she is... if there's a collision, we're kind of past the time that ATR would apply, aren't we? Maybe I'm not catching your meaning. Describe for me a collision where you'd not call OBS because of ATR.

In NCAA's words, when both the offense and the defense are doing what they legally can and a collision happens. Those codes that removed "about to receive" now require possession to avoid the obstruction call. Not so with NCAA. If you have "about to receive" in play, but the defense does not have possession, and the runner is not illegally "crashing", and there is contact, you merely have a wreck. The term "wreck" (you said you didn't like it...) is actually used in the NCAA Umpire's Manual (at least the one I have a copy of; several years old by now).

[EsqUmp]

The runner blatantly interfered. I have watched the play over and over in slow motion and the ball was up against the fielder's body and glove when the runner ran into her. Since when was the fielder required to play the ball with 100% accuracy in order to be protected? This isn't the case of a deflected ball bounced 5 feet away. The ball only "gets away" when the runner bashed into the 2nd baseman.

I am one of the bigger proponents of having more "no-call wrecks." However, to have a wreck, both parties must be doing what they are supposed to be doing. Running directly into a fielder fielding the ball is NOT what the offense should be doing. The offense is required to vacate the area needed by the defense to execute the play.

NCAA Rule 12.19.1.4.3: "It is still INTERFERENCE if a batted ball is misplayed and remains in front of the fielder such that the fielder still has an opportunity to make a play, and the base runner contacts the fielder. Exception: If the misplayed ball bounds away or past the fielder and then contact occurs as the fielder and base runner collide, this may be considered inadvertent contact, interference or obstruction.

INTERFERENCE WAS THE CORRECT CALL. IT WAS NOT CALLED.

[AtlUmpSteve]

Do we know that the umpire crew was at all involved or asked if the run scored? I can easily see the umpire crew addressing the ejection, apparent injury, and all that aftermath without anyone noticing that the scoreboard now shows an extra run.

And, is it the umpire crew's job to know? Or simply to answer the question if asked. I don't pay that much attention if I'm not looking at a run rule; I'm thinking the official scorer screwed up, and the Hawaii bench failed to question the score.

[DNTXUM P]

Originally Posted by EsqUmp

The runner blatantly interfered. I have watched the play over and over in slow motion and the ball was up against the fielder's body and glove when the runner ran into her. Since when was the fielder required to play the ball with 100% accuracy in order to be protected? This isn't the case of a deflected ball bounced 5 feet away. The ball only "gets away" when the runner bashed into the 2nd baseman.

I am one of the bigger proponents of having more "no-call wrecks." However, to have a wreck, both parties must be doing what they are supposed to be doing. Running directly into a fielder fielding the ball is NOT what the offense should be doing. The offense is required to vacate the area needed by the defense to execute the play.

NCAA Rule 12.19.1.4.3: "It is still INTERFERENCE if a batted ball is misplayed and remains in front of the fielder such that the fielder still has an opportunity to make a play, and the base runner contacts the fielder. Exception: If the misplayed ball bounds away or past the fielder and then contact occurs as the fielder and base runner collide, this may be considered inadvertent contact, interference or obstruction.

INTERFERENCE WAS THE CORRECT CALL. IT WAS NOT CALLED.

It always amazes me when umpires come on here who have never experienced calling at the speed this level of softball is happening and start to criticize others based on being able to watch video clips over and over again in slow motion.

Yes, I believe the umpire missed the interference, but he made a judgement call based on what was in front of him at the time and in the position he was at on the field. A judgement call, we all make them every day.

Instead of criticizing, and talking about how badly our fellow umpires missed calls when most of us have never seen plays develop at this speed, we should be using the information to figure out what we would do and what would be a better position to take so we can get a better look and possibly make a different judgement.

Thanks for letting me get this off my chest.

[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?

[youngump]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

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. program or on-site NCAA game staff.....or for that matter the Hawaii coaching staff?

Thoughts?

So, I'd guess that Hawaii's HC doesn't throw himself out if the BU realizes the run doesn't count and comes out with: Coach, this wasn't interference because ... but the runner was tagged out for the third out of the inning anyway, so even if I called interference the result of the play is still no runs scoring.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by youngump

So, I'd guess that Hawaii's HC doesn't throw himself out if the BU realizes the run doesn't count and comes out with: Coach, this wasn't interference because ... but the runner was tagged out for the third out of the inning anyway, so even if I called interference the result of the play is still no runs scoring.

If the argument was about the run counting, I would think that the Hawaii HC would initially be in a discussion (as opposed to an argument) with the PU. Which probably would have led to the crew getting together.

But you raise a good point....based on reading lips in the video, I assumed he was arguing the no INF call.