Question from WCWS

[HollowMan]

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.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by HollowMan

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!

[RKBUmp]

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.

[DNTXUM P]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

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.

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.

[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.

[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?

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by DNTXUM P

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

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.

[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?