Today's first Oregon-Texas game.

[UmpireErnie]

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.

We have no NCAA ball in Alaska, so this is based on FED or ASA. With all due respect to my colleagues working this game, here are my opinions.. I am totally willing to accept that based on the view from the correct position on the field vs. the angle/distance of the view provided by ESPN I might change my opinion. With that in mind..

1. (This play takes place at about 24:00 into the espn3.com video) It seems clearly that the runner had plenty of time to react to the fielder in her path. All she had to do was go into her slide or step around her. OBS award home. But she CHOSE to stay upright and plow into F2. In Fed, this is a dead ball runner out for MC, ejected, all other runners return to last base occupied. It overrules OBS. In ASA there is no rule to call the runner out if the fielder is guilty of OBS but it is still MC and the runner can be (and my judgement based only on video replay is..should be) ejected.

2. (This play takes place at about 56:00 into the espn3.com video) On this play at the plate F2 has the ball well ahead of the runners arrival, and this time the runner makes a legal slide and is tagged out. So far so good. Then the runner while getting up from being tagged, shoves F2 to the ground forcibly with both arms. Not so good. PU called immediate dead ball after the shove by the runner, but he never signaled and out on the tag. In the video I can't ever see the ball loose it seems like a good tag so this should be a retired runner who then commits malicious contact. (If the ball HAD come lose and the runner had not yet scored then then the runner committed MC while F2 was trying to get the ball we would have INT and an out anyway.)

At the point of MC by a retired runner which it seems to me this shove by this runner is we should have a dead ball and return the runners to last base occupied at the time of the MC. If F2 had a play available on the runners on base but was prevented from making a play because the retired runner shoved her to the ground we would also have INT by a retired runner and the runner closest to home would be declared out. From the views in the video it appears at the time of the MC the lead runner was one step or less off 3B and based on the last shot we get of the batter-runner I doubt she was at 2B, that might have been what the later umpire conference was about. It does not appear in the video that F2 had any subsequent play so no INT by retired runner. But I would have moved the runners back to 1B and 2B.

In my opinion, the shove-down was MC and should also warrent an ejection. Further, had the runner who crashed the opposing F2 in the first inning been ejected, this shove-down issue might not have come up.

Interesting point at 1:03:00 PU has to warn F1 about arguing balls and strikes.

At 2:02:00 of the video we have another play at the plate where the retired runner throws an elbow after being tagged out at home. This time PU does eject the runner. Again, if the earlier MCs were ejected we might not escalate to this.

#3 (2:20:00 of the video) Either NCAA interp and the level of ball I get to do here differ or my judgement and this crew's judgement differ. I see this as the fielder with control of the ball completely stopped on the base bath waiting to apply a simple routine tag. The batter-runner made no attempt to slow down or avoid the contact and in fact raised both arms prior to running into and knocking down F3. It's uncalled for and it's MC. I think it deserves an early check out.

Another interesting point at 2:57:00. Runners on 3B and 2B, 1 out, pop up to F6. Runner retreating to 2B trips F6 as she is trying to catch the pop up. No initial call. F6 makes the catch after falling down. Blues circle the wagons and after further review come up with INT on the runner. Since the ball becomes dead the catch never happened, and it was not going to be a double play. So the batter-runner was placed at 1B with a fielder's choice. There were a lot of Texas fans booing this; one notable fan calling the umpires "spineless" but I think they got the call right.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by UmpireErnie

Another interesting point at 2:57:00. Runners on 3B and 2B, 1 out, pop up to F6. Runner retreating to 2B trips F6 as she is trying to catch the pop up. No initial call. F6 makes the catch after falling down. Blues circle the wagons and after further review come up with INT on the runner. Since the ball becomes dead the catch never happened, and it was not going to be a double play. So the batter-runner was placed at 1B with a fielder's choice. There were a lot of Texas fans booing this; one notable fan calling the umpires "spineless" but I think they got the call right.

I believe this play was not called correctly under 12-19-1, exception 2:
2. If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out.

IMO, the pop up is very much "routine"

[MD Longhorn]

F6 makes the catch

Originally Posted by Big Slick

If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball

Hmm.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Hmm.

She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

She made the catch despite the interference, and it was a circus catch at that (she caught it falling down, which she fell down due to the interference).

I can understand the misapplication of the rule, this is something you do not see very often and becomes one of those "little known rules."

I do understand that, and would rule 2 outs as well, despite the fact that this rule is in the wrong place.

But I've been saying for at least 2 years now that the way they wrote the rule is NOT what they mean (and not what we call!). The way they wrote it, taken literally, means we cannot call 2 outs if the fielder actually manages to catch the ball. Which is rather stupid as it would penalize the defense for making the catch (and reward them for not making it).

I know what the "right" ruling is... it's just not what the book says it is anymore.

[CecilOne]

Where is that lawyer? Obviously, the INT prevented the catch from being routine, so it prevented a routine catch.

[Crabby_Bob]

As it's written, "routine" modifies "fly ball", not "catch"

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

I do understand that, and would rule 2 outs as well, despite the fact that this rule is in the wrong place.

But I've been saying for at least 2 years now that the way they wrote the rule is NOT what they mean (and not what we call!). The way they wrote it, taken literally, means we cannot call 2 outs if the fielder actually manages to catch the ball. Which is rather stupid as it would penalize the defense for making the catch (and reward them for not making it).

I know what the "right" ruling is... it's just not what the book says it is anymore.

I agree that the wording is screwy, however, think of it this way: once there is interference, the ball is dead, and it is inconsequential if the ball ends up in the fielders glove. Technically the fielder can't catch it (the ball is dead), and thus she is prevented in doing so.

[CecilOne]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I agree that the wording is screwy, however, think of it this way: once there is interference, the ball is dead, and it is inconsequential if the ball ends up in the fielders glove. Technically the fielder can't catch it (the ball is dead), and thus she is prevented in doing so.

Better than my legality!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

I believe this play was not called correctly under 12-19-1, exception 2:
2. If the interference prevents the fielder from catching a routine fly ball, the batter is also out.

IMO, the pop up is very much "routine"

Thank you, but why isn't that up with the rule?

I agree, the BR should have also been called out.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

Thank you, but why isn't that up with the rule?

I agree, the BR should have also been called out.

Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).

[AtlUmpSteve]

I believe the question is why this isn't also listed under 12.9.7, Base Runner is out when she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. I believe this is the section everyone has hung their hat on until now.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by AtlUmpSteve

I believe the question is why this isn't also listed under 12.9.7, Base Runner is out when she interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. I believe this is the section everyone has hung their hat on until now.

Well, I cannot get half the people to turn one page sometimes, let alone 10

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Big Slick

Well, it sort of is, the rule, 12-19, is rather lengthy and attempts to be inclusive. There are 4 subsections and the fourth subsection has 5 subsections. The effect, then the exceptions.

But like I stated previously, this is a rule that you might have to implement once every three years, and it is prone to be forgotten (and take it one step further with ASA prevision for a foul ball).

But ASA's reference to fair or foul at the rule level is a waste of space. A fly ball is a fly ball, fair or foul. This is the type of extaneous wording that is placed just to satisfy those who want to read something into a rule that isn't there.

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

But ASA's reference to fair or foul at the rule level is a waste of space. A fly ball is a fly ball, fair or foul. This is the type of extaneous wording that is placed just to satisfy those who want to read something into a rule that isn't there.

Actually, it isn't a waste of space. Both NFHS and NCAA has specific language if the fly ball is fair or foul, with different effects. ASA has the same effect on any fly ball (ok, so maybe that is a waste of space to say "fair or foul").