Notre Dame, UA interference call

[GoRedSox]

I at first thought the ruling on the field was wrong, so I looked up the NCAA rule and according to rule12.19.5 the call was right. "A base runner, after being declared out or after scoring, may not interfere with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another base runner."

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox

I at first thought the ruling on the field was wrong, so I looked up the NCAA rule and according to rule12.19.5 the call was right. "A base runner, after being declared out or after scoring, may not interfere with a defensive player's opportunity to make a play on another base runner."

What interference? What play? The call was incorrect on multiple levels even for NCAA

[luvthegame]

They don't have to go poof (as some umpires say)....they just can't interfere!!
Just like they don't "have to slide"...they just can't interfere!!!

A runner who has been retired has no business having an impact on any other play....thus they are required to get out of the way of a play being made. This runner appeared to be somewhat confused...rightfully so because of the short hop....doesn't try to get out of the play (way)...but tries (turns) to shield herself from getting hit square in the chest or face.

She had options...like giving up and veering off (out of the throwing lane)...hitting the deck to get out of the throwing lane.....she had to know at this point that she was out. If you watch the entire broadcast....the Notre Dame coach appears to be telling her the same thing back in their dugout!

If the umpires had ruled incorrectly...ie.....if it is true that a retired runner cannot simply "go poof" and that was part of the rule (not just some umpires opinion on a forum)....then the coach should have protested it!! I just haven't been able to find that wording in any manual or rule book.

All this being said.....I'm not sure that there was a "play" (attempt to retire a player) on the batter runner, as many have noticed that the batter runner was already past 1b.

But.....what if the batter runner had missed first base?....then the deflection of the ball off of a retired runner could have delayed the appeal of a miss of first base??? As that appeal has to be made before batter runner returns to 1b.

So...shortstop is following through and trying to make a throw on a possible play???

Umpires made a correct call....according to the rules as they are written. In my opinion.

But I'm not Mike!!!

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Where did you find that that #1 camp, Hess Field? ....

No, right here. Red and luv.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Dakota

No, right here. Red and luv.

Yeah, but I was talking about umpires.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by GoRedSox

I at first thought the ruling on the field was wrong,

Should have stopped there... the ruling on the field WAS wrong.

[Andy]

OK....I had an opportunity to speak with the UIC for this regional game last week.

When U3 made the interference call, he was convinced he was correct. In the post game debrief, he came to understand that he was not.

I will comment on the other two plays in question from this regional on those threads.

[ronald]

Originally Posted by Andy

OK....I had an opportunity to speak with the UIC for this regional game last week.

When U3 made the interference call, he was convinced he was correct. In the post game debrief, he came to understand that he was not.

I will comment on the other two plays in question from this regional on those threads.

Thanks for updates

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by Andy

OK....I had an opportunity to speak with the UIC for this regional game last week.

When U3 made the interference call, he was convinced he was correct. In the post game debrief, he came to understand that he was not.

I will comment on the other two plays in question from this regional on those threads.

Not true!!

Might have been what uic told you.

Or what uic told him.