Today's first Oregon-Texas game.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Three things:

1) What was all the hub-bub regarding the obstruction call against Texas's catcher in the first inning?

2) Why wasn't the Texas runner ejected for giving the Oregon catcher after being tagged out in the third inning?

3) Later in the game why wasn't the Texas batter/runner ejected for malicious contact when she was tagged out by the Oregon first baseman?

MTD, Sr.

1) Watching it (I believe) that TX HC was looking for an INF call on the Oregon runner as she banged pretty hard into the F2 after the OBS call and the ball got pass her and rolled toward the backstop where F1 was backing up the play.

2) Warnings were issued to both teams.

3) That one had me puzzled, esp. in light of the warnings that had been issued, and the EJ of Oregon's starting first baseman after she elbowed the TX catcher after being tagged out on a play at the plate.....after warnings had been issued.
The play between the TX BR and Oregon's F3 did result in the ejection of the Oregon pitching coach.

[ronald]

So. Ejection due on point One and missed? When I get a chance tuesday to see the play I will have a better idea of everything. If I see a runner run over a player, they are going to the showers.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by ronald

So. Ejection due on point One and missed? When I get a chance tuesday to see the play I will have a better idea of everything. If I see a runner run over a player, they are going to the showers.

He didn't miss an EJ. You want to make a case for INF after the OBS call....OK, possible. PU obviously did not see it that way.
That said, IMO....
PU did a good job of handling all aspects of all three incidents at HP.
He showed good game management skills in a big game under the microscope of national TV......plus he had a good game behind the plate.

[Hman]

You could make a case for INF (retired runner) if, there was an opportunity, in umpires judgement, to make another play. In the spirit of the rules I think HP made the right call on both the play and the EJ. I also think the review by NCAA and the awarded suspension was the correct call.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Hman

You could make a case for INF (retired runner) if, there was an opportunity, in umpires judgement, to make another play. In the spirit of the rules I think HP made the right call on both the play and the EJ. I also think the review by NCAA and the awarded suspension was the correct call.

The two game suspension for a player being ejected for physical contact with an opponent is automatic by rule.....for the first offense in a season.
Second offense, four games; third offense suspended for remainder of season, including postseason competition.

[UmpireErnie]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

The two game suspension for a player being ejected for physical contact with an opponent is automatic by rule.....for the first offense in a season.
Second offense, four games; third offense suspended for remainder of season, including postseason competition.

So do the big automatic penalties lead to hesitation by umpires to toss players for MC? I thought there should have been more ejections for MC in this game.

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

So do the big automatic penalties lead to hesitation by umpires to toss players for MC? I thought there should have been more ejections for MC in this game.

Perhaps, and I have no argument with any of the posters who support that opinion.
That said, going back over the four plays that had incidents of contact, (not counting the INF call on the OU runner going back to 2nd), they were covered by two separate NCAA rules which cover two different forms of physical contact that occurs between opponents.

Rule 12 BASERUNNING; under Regulations Governing Base Running,12.14 Collisions, covers...."unnecessary and violent collisions with the catcher at home plate and with infielders at all bases."

Rule 13 MISCONDUCT;13.2 Physical Contact with an Umpire or Opponent, covers....."physical intimidation or harm, including pushing, shoving, spitting, throwing at or attempting to make aggressive physical contact....".

12.14 Notes state: "If the act is determined to be flagrant, the offender will be ejected."

13.2 EFFECT states: "The perpetrator shall be ejected and then suspended for the next two scheduled and played contests....."

Recapping the plays:
1) OU runner bangs into UT catcher after PU had signaled OBS on UT catcher.
Covered by 12.14, by rule, EJ only if action is determined flagrant.

2) UT runner elbows/shoves OU catcher after they become entangled after UT runner is called out at the plate.
I would think covered by 13.2, and if so, by rule, the perpetrator is ejected. I'm assuming that the PU saw the play as a violation of 12.14.

After this play warnings were issued to both teams.

3) OU runner elbows UT catcher after she is called out at the plate.
Covered by 13.2....OU runner ejected.

4) UT BR crossed her arms and banged into OU F3 who is standing a few feet up the line from 1st waiting to tag out the UT BR.
Covered by 12.14, and U1 determined the action by the UT BR to not be flagrant. (Play did result in an OU AC getting ejected.)

Play #2 seems to be the play that many believe should have had an EJ, and feel that if in fact that had occurred, maybe plays #3 & #4 never happen. I don't disagree with that, and the PU may have erred here. But #3 & #4 did happen, and along with #1 the decisions of the crew on these plays are supported by rule.

Let's be honest, that was a season's worth of collision/contact plays in like 4 innings in that game. IMO, I thought the crew handled things well and do not feel that they failed to control the game.

I wonder what the comments and opinions would be if say they had tossed four players?

[sbatten]

Originally Posted by KJUmp

1) Watching it (I believe) that TX HC was looking for an INF call on the Oregon runner as she banged pretty hard into the F2 after the OBS call and the ball got pass her and rolled toward the backstop where F1 was backing up the play.

I can see the U of T HC asking for Interference but not being taken seriously, given that PU had his arm out before the collision. On the other hand, if she was arguing for USC, she could at least have an argument. Not that I would have bought it...

2) Warnings were issued to both teams.

Is that why PU called time immediately, do you think? So he could warn the teams? I was sure, seeing it live, that he had seen the UT runner scrapping with the catcher after the tag and was AT LEAST put the other runners back to bases last possessed. I was really surprised that he killed the play so he could have a chat.

Scott

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by sbatten

I can see the U of T HC asking for Interference but not being taken seriously, given that PU had his arm out before the collision. On the other hand, if she was arguing for USC, she could at least have an argument. Not that I would have bought it...



Is that why PU called time immediately, do you think? So he could warn the teams? I was sure, seeing it live, that he had seen the UT runner scrapping with the catcher after the tag and was AT LEAST put the other runners back to bases last possessed. I was really surprised that he killed the play so he could have a chat.

Scott

No...he killed it because of the actions of the UT runner. Crew then got together with both HC's and informed them of the warnings.