Today's first Oregon-Texas game.

[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."

[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 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.

[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

[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").

[ronald]

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).

I am sorry if I am dense on this one but to me it is a no brainer that br and runner are out on this play. I learned that one a long time ago.

It sounds to me that NCAA has created a cluster smudge with the rule book on this play. Comments?

[Big Slick]

Originally Posted by ronald

I am sorry if I am dense on this one but to me it is a no brainer that br and runner are out on this play. I learned that one a long time ago.

It sounds to me that NCAA has created a cluster smudge with the rule book on this play. Comments?

How?
It is almost word for word with ASA and NFHS. The only issue that has arisen is that NCAA rule book added the Interference section (and moved obstruction to the new "Defense" rule) a few years ago. This rule can be found in the general section of interference 12-19), not under the section of "runner is out . . ." (12-9-8).

[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"

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Crabby_Bob

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

I would think it would be more along the line of ability ot effort.