Question from WCWS
 

My 12 YO daughter and I were watching the Hawaii vs North Dakota State game this weekend, and had a question regarding a play that happened in the game.

North Dakota State was batting, two out, runners on first and second. The ball was hit to the second baseman, and just as the ball got there the baserunner going from first to second collided with the second baseman. Runner goes flying, fielder goes flying, ball goes flying. As the runner is trying to crawl to second base, the shortstop picks up the ball and tags the runner out before she gets to the base. Prior to the tag, the runner who was on second base crossed home plate.

The Hawaii coach was ejected arguing over the interference call, but what my daughter and I did not understand was that the run was counted. Isn't tagging the runner the same as stepping on the bag, thus forcing the runner and negating the run?

Thanks in advance.

Yes.....it was a force out.
You and your daughter are correct....good catch!

It appears F4 muffed the play on the ball prior to the contact, hence the non interference call. Now the question is, why didnt the umpire now rule obstruction on F4? The fielder was not in posession of the ball, was no longer making a play on the ball and definitely hindered the runner.

It appeared to me that the ball was still in the fielders hands when contact occured. Whether or not she was in control, it appeared she was, but possibly not. From what i saw, the fielder was definitely still making a play on the ball and did not hinder the runner - hence no obstruction. But I do not know how someone on the field did not catch the tag for the 3rd out before the runner reached the base - it was not a timing play

In U1's judgement, he felt that it was a wreck, and gave the appropriate signal.

IMO, watched the replay numerous times....wreck? possible; INF? possible; OBS? no.

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?

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.

can anyone post the plays?

I think the crew just got caught up in the play and what happened in the aftermath...U1 has the EJ, U3 is getting the ejected Hawaii HC off the field, PU had waved in a trainer to attend to one of the players and moved into an area near the circle; I mean there was a lot going on. I'm not offering that as an excuse for them not catching the fact that the run was allowed to score....just saying.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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).

thanks

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)

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.

Not to belabor the point (since I think we agree, here), but you are using precise physics to describe a playing action being observed by a human. In the situation where both ball and runner arrive at the same (observable) time, it is still a wreck.

Fair enough ... I just find the term immensely overused given our current rule-set. I see your point though.

Video of collision

Recording 2012521133248 - YouTube

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

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

Um... no.

It says what you quoted... it does not say, "about to receive a fielded ball or about to receive a thrown ball."

ATR refers only to a thrown ball, like Mike said.

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?

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.

Regarding the issue of allowing the run to score, I think that it is possible that the plate umpire may have thought that R1 (NCAA) actually touched 2nd base when she tumbled over. Then in an effort to get back to the base, was tagged out after the lead runner scored.

mb..... help me out, not disagreeing with your reply, are you referencing 9.4.2?

Great point.....I thought the same thing when I was going through the whole how/why? thing in my mind yesterday. Went back and watched the replay again to see.

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.

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.

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.

That's what I would like to believe happened. Unfortunately, if that was the case, because that would have turned it into a timing play with R2 rounding 3rd base and coming home to score, the plate umpire should have either pointed to the plate and said "count the run" or waved off the run.

I also know that we aren't score keepers, but we do have a responsibility to clarify when there is confusion. We have mechanics for that. And while we don't stare at scoreboards, someone (including the umpires) should have seen that the "1" turned into a "2" during the ESPN expanded media time between innings.

Ahhhhh....now I see your point.
Only took me four hours to understand what you were saying!!!

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.

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?

Minor nit: The phantom run was the first scored by ND. Makes the runner INT in the 7th much more significant.

Yes there is.

And in addition to the PU immediately pointing to the plate and stating "no run" or "no score", as you pointed out, the Manual also instructs the PU to "watch the scoreboard to make sure a run is not recorded."

Again, as I said in a much earlier post..... there was a lot going on both during and after the play. Some focus was lost. It could happen to anyone of us, at a regional, National, or any big game in any tournament under any sanction. We can ALL learn something here.

You're welcome. I have called at the "speed this level of softball is happening." I did not come on to criticize the umpire. I usually find a way to support the umpire. My commentary was an application of the rule to the play, something almost no one else was doing. People post on this forum without bothering to open up the NCAA rule book. The NCAA rules are specific on this play. People bash the NCAA rule book for being too long and wordy, but it is specific and leave little doubt, the doubt that those who focus in other "codes" clearly brought to these posts.

I watched it in slow motion to see if I could find a way to support the umpire. I was hoping the ball went by or through the fielder. That just wasn't the case.

So we can learn this: 1) Know the rules you are to enforce, know them well and know what field you're on; 2) don't rush your calls; 3) when you might/are wrong, you better give the disagreeing coach a little more leeway; 4) when umpires get together, they ought to get the entire call correct; 5) it's better to get together and discuss the play before someone gets ejected; 6) proper plate mechanics signaling "count the run" or "no run" could be helpful in a case like this. 7) A fielder fielding a batted ball has protection under the interference rules until the fielder clearly demonstrates that she no longer has that protection - not the other way around; and 8) when a runner runs and a straight line and makes no effort to go behind or in front of a defender fielding a batted ball in the base line, there's a hell of a good chance there is interference if there is a collision and the runner, not the fielder, is the one who would have to convince the umpire otherwise.

Not for nothing and leaving aside your resume you like to share with us whenever you disagree with a newbie, but HAVE YOU EVER READ THE NCAA RULE BOOK OR MECHANICS MANUAL? :eek:

You have repeatedly made comments on posts pertaining to NCAA rules and mechanics and are so often incorrect. Then, when it is pointed out to you, you simply say something uneducated like, "The umpire's mechanics were clear in this case."

Used NCAA manuals and rule books don't have much resale value on the open market, so feel free to crack the spine and deflower yours.

For anyone who needs it, go HERE for an NCAA 2012-2013 Softball Rule Book.

Though you go through the steps of "purchasing" it, the download is free and only takes a minute or two.

I've had one sitting on my laptop for the past few years and it is a great and efficient resource.

This isn't a fall tournament. If he/she isn't up to it, maybe he/she shouldn't be in a group that is, presumably, the top 64 NCAA officials in the country.

There were some pretty badly kicked calls this weekend that were potential game changers. The one or possibly two in the 8th inning of the Michigan v. Louisville winners game on Saturday being probably the most egregious. And that's just in the 12 games that were nationally televised.

TV can be very revealing. I noticed ESPN isn't using K Zone this year.

:)

Thanks - I didn't know I could do that.
Searching a pdf if sooo much easier than flipping through the book and having it on my laptop is soooooo much easier than going to the Hub each time.

You've made me so very happy.
:)

The one at 3B really looked bad on TV. I think if he got one more step down before the call, he might have gotten a better look.

Did they use it for the entire tournament or just the finals? I think while it is nice and helpful, at some point it can become annoying to the viewer if overused, which I think it is when available.

As I recall they only used the K zone at the finals. From my understanding of how it works its a petty expensive system and requires numerous camers set up at specific angles in order to track the pitch, not to mention the crews to operate it. Just to many fields going on in to many locations to have it at all the regionals.

Does ASA provide their rule books in anything other than hard copy? Sure is nice to be able to search the book on the computer.

He was way late and short. Not sure why either. Not much else to worry about except his responsibility at 3B.

You and RKB are right - it was just the WCWS. Don't see ESPN hyping it this year.

Aren't 12 year olds wonderful? :)

I had the opportunity to speak with the UIC for this regional.

The explanation for the non-interference call is that is was a judgement call be the umpire. Period.

The explanation for why the run was allowed to score - after the collision, umpire states he saw the runner touch second base, lost contact with the base, and was tagged out. The force was not in effect when the runner was tagged.

Yes, this was part of a conversation between innings that we did not see on TV.....

Throughout this thread, my only criticism had been of the crew allowing the run to score. I've supported everything that I saw U1 do on the play, including the non INF call as it is his judgement.

But after reading that statement, all I can say is WTF?
I can't believe how he could say that to his crew or the UIC. His eyes (actually his head) never seemed to move away from the runner and the bag, nor did it appear that he, at any point, got screened by any of the players. I was impressed that he stayed with the play, despite all the chaos, and was right there for the out call on the tag. So his statement really has me scratching my head.

Question Andy, any mention by the UIC of video of the play being reviewed with the crew after the game?