Notre Dame, UA interference call
 

Bottom of 4th inning, anyone catch the play? R1, batter hits line drive in direction of F4. R1 has to hold for possible fly out, F4 short hops ball and throws to F6 at 2nd for force. R1 now heading to 2nd, F6 makes throw to 1st into runner who is directly in baseline. Umpires rule interference on retired runner, call BR out. As has been discussed on many posts, runner cannot simply dissappear from the field after being retired.

Personally, I thought the runner was trying to get OUT of the way, and absolutely not intentionally interfering. Bad call IMHO.

Except for not being able to see it from U3's position, (which I guess would be a camera shot from LCF) looking from 2nd to 1st, I've got nothing.

RKB....thanks for the link and posting the video of the play.

Did she slide? I was taught if the throw is not errant and the runner stays up and gets hit, it is intererence by rr.

Slide?? She was 30 feet from the bag!

They taught you that runners closer to 1st than 2nd have to slide?

Where in the rules does it say a runner must slide? The only mention of it is to avoid a collision if the defender is standing there waiting to make a tag. There was no tag being made on this play, and as as just mentioned she was maybe 1/2 way between 1st and 2nd. Slide for what? Ive seen some pretty good slides, but none that went 30'.

no. i did not know she was 30 feet from the bag.

why did not someone say that in the first place. not everyone has internet at home:D

what does the NCAA rule book and interpretations say on this?

Above, it says umpires ruled interference. I find it hard to believe that 3 of the yahoos got together and came up with the incorrect ruling. I could be wrong. But god helps us if that is true.

We expect the batter to figure out where a loose ball is so she or he does not get plucked by a throw from the catcher (i believe we have said that is interference). And now the runner can see she is out by 30 feet and can not do something to get out of the way of the incoming missle. That does not add up to me.

Explanations, please and thank you. Why you guys are helping out I will ask one of my UIC's.

Recording 201252274241 - YouTube

Perhaps watching the video will explain it. She did in fact check up, and when she realized the ball was going to hit her she did try to get out of the way. F6 simply drilled her, she had no chance.

Ummm.... so how are you responding? Telepathic connection? :D

The nail in the coffin for this being a bad call is the fact that there was no play to interfere with. The BR had already achieved 1B before the time of the throw.

It seems there are always 2 camps of officials with differing calls for the runner who gets beaned by the throw while traveling from 1B to 2B. Those who state that the runner must not interfere with the play no matter what, and those who state that as long as the runner is doing what they are "supposed to" and do not perform an "act" to cause interference, there is no interference.

Camp #1 would call the a play like this interference; camp #2 would not.

HOWEVER, regardless of which camp you live in, IMHO there was no way that on this play either camp should have an interference call. There is no way that the throw would have beaten the BR to 1B. The BR was on or 1/2 step away from 1B when the throw was released. The runner could not have possibly interfered with the play, which we define as an opportunity to record an out.

Now, did the umpire have the wherewithal to think to him/herself "Hmmm, would the BR have been safe anyway?"... probably not.

Edit: Dakota beat me to it.

for a while, yes:D. last night my daughter got her foot caught in the computer cord and knocked the computer down and it is out now. have to go the library and that is not going to happen everyday.

way so cool...............thanks.

+1.

So, by conjecture, what the heck happened to get to let's call the br out? I do not understand how where was the br could not have come up in the conversation. A process to come up with the correct call is not occurring IMO and this is discouraging and upsetting.

Since we have all seen this video, we should develop if we have not already done so, what to do on a play like this. Somebody has to know and have a system to determine where the runner or runners are when a dead ball call goes up and out. I think this play illustrates that talking about it in meetings is not getting it done. This is something that needs to be practiced on the field and drilled. Mike you now have a new drill for out next
Central Atlantic Clinic. What do think?

Umps have complained about lackluster clinics. We now have a great source to get live material that we can get into our training. The videos are priceless and it is what other sports do to improve their officials.

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

Who wants to call her out? Pretty sure the consensus was that the ruling was wrong.
Hell, all three of the umpires didn't have the wherewithal to come up with that.

Yes, for this play most everyone here agrees the call was wrong. I was referring to the general situation of a double play situation, where the runner is struck with a throw while advancing to 2B. Usually this runner is far closer to 2B, and in those situations the interference/no interference rulings seem to be 50/50 (camp #1 v. camp #2) based on the reasoning I stated. Of course, we all know to which camp you belong, Irish.

And with those dumb rounded backstops they just put in at Hess, we might as well put a tarp over them, make camp, and start a campfire. :rolleyes:

+1

I don't think there are that many umpires in the "call the INT" camp as you think. Now, players and coaches, that's a different story.

Hate those clam-shell backstops. All they do is endanger the umpire, catcher and batter all for the sake of not having to chase a ball into the fields.

Devil's advocate, this part only. Let's forget or ignore for the moment that we all disagree with the result.

When the umpire crew gets together and discusses a judgment call, who here thinks the majority rules? Even if/when the majority is correct??

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the calling umpire's call unless he/she accepts the "additional missing piece"??

For all we know, two people were saying "Really?", and totally disagreeing for all the reasons we have been stating, yet failed to provide enough information to convince the calling umpire he erred. Absent that, what other outcome should we expect?

Or am I missing something?

You are absolutely correct, that is an assumption that can be made.

OTOH, I hope this conference was about more than just "additional missing piece" of information. I would like to think that, especially at this point of competition, the three actually reviewed the play and the rule. I don't think judgment comes into play here as there isn't much question that the runner was ruled out simply because she was hit by a thrown ball. There certainly wasn't any "act" of interference.

The only possible "additional missing piece" I can think of would be the point that there was no play @ 1B. That would have made for an easy resolution that would most likely have alleviated the call and the crew from major scrutiny.

It would also be nice to know how the ND coach approached the umpires and how the call was questioned. This could have been a case of someone with a separate view just not walking the crew through the play with commentary. Could have there been a fixation on an INT call that prevented them from considering the possibilty there was no play with which to interfere?

And just for ****s and giggles, wouldn't you love to know what was going through Candrea's mind at the time? :D

I think there are a lot of great lessons learned at Hess field.

Oh No you didnt
 

Uh oh. Now you've done it. Mbcrowder will be a long soon and chastise you for using the phrase "she's doing what she was supposed to do!". ;):D Where's mbcrowder when you need him? :D:rolleyes:;):p:)

Know a couple guys who learned the fine art of cow tipping at an umpire's tournament held there years ago :D

I agree with much of the rest of your post. However, I don't think you'll find many umpires who would view this play in replay and call it interference. Put that runner 20 feet closer to 2nd and move the batter back 20 feet, and you'll have your Camps 1 and 2.

:)

Cow tippin' isn't that much of an art . . is it all science. "Fine art(s)" are located a few miles west of Hess.:D

No your not missing anything.
In going back and looking at the replay, (yet again), after reading your post; stopping it at the :13, :14,& :15 sec. marks, you can see the crew all where they should at that point in the play.

PU is looking down the line to first and the BR.
U1 is at a 90 to 1st in foul ground looking toward 2nd and at R1.
U3 is on the outside of 2nd having just called the force out on R1 and watching the throw from F6 to F3.
then.......
U3, after making the INF call walks toward the first baseline and his partners where the conference.

Was he going there on his own to ask for a piece of information he was missing?
Was he beckoned by the PU or U1 who had a piece of information on the location of the BR?

While U3 can be faulted for not recognizing the location of the BR at the time he made the INF call, U1 (and PU trailing) had the responsibility for the BR.
Did they (B1&PU) just get caught up in watching the throw hit the runner and the fact that the BR had already touched 1st just escape them and never entered into the conversation when the conferenced?

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

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!!!

No, right here. Red and luv. :rolleyes:

Yeah, but I was talking about umpires.:rolleyes:

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

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

Not true!!

Might have been what uic told you.

Or what uic told him.