Question from WCWS

[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.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

Sure. My comment was more global than the OP. The general term of "train wreck" nearly always means, "I can't decide if that was OBS or INT, so I'll call nothing".

(Not always ... but nearly so)

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

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

Refers to both Mike, it (9.3) reads......"in the act of fielding a batted ball or about to receive a thrown 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).

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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).

I know it's in the book, and I see your point. I'm not saying there's no such thing as TW. Just that a very large majority of the time when an umpire uses the term, they are not, in fact, describing an actual TW - they are missing the call one way or the other.

Regarding ATR - we're taught that ATR means that the fielder can move into the basepath to receive a thrown ball as the ball becomes closer to the fielder than the runner. There is no case where a collision could occur where the fielder is about to receive a ball that is closer to him than the runner - the collision makes that distance zero.

I will say that I omitted a significant TW from my original statement though - that being the batter getting out of the box as the catcher's coming out to field a bunt.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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).

Term is still used in the 2012 Manual....there's a paragraph with the heading...WRECKS

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by 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.

I really, really, REALLY hate to be the one to raise this point, but is there not a standard NCAA mechanic provided to inform each member of the crew that a run/no run scenario IS a possibility in this type of situation?

Should not the PU have immediately pointed at the plate and stated, "no run" or "no score" or something to that effect that would have eliminated all doubt?

[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.