Today's first Oregon-Texas game.
 

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.

My thoughts exactly. I did not see the game, but the replays of the two Texas players making contact looked more malicious than the contact made by the Oregon player.

1) I don't know. call looked easy to me.
2) That play looked very poorly handled on many levels. I heard runner was now being suspended for 2 games.
3) I don't know.

The assault on the catcher. It was OBS, but that doesn't give the runner the right to run over her.

Apparently, that instance is what caused warnings to both benches.

Problem with NCAA ball. Too many people still do believe it is baseball for girls/women and believe the players should just "toughen up" if they are going to play the game. That's okay. The day will come where criminal charges are filed, personal injury lawsuit filed and won and they will not have a choice.

Personally, ejection wouldn't be a second thought especially after what had already occurred in the game.

BTW, the ejected player was given a two-game suspension and is not eligible for this game, nor the next if they advance.

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.

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.

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

Finally noticed your pm


UOTE=IRISHMAFIA;843530]The assault on the catcher. It was OBS, but that doesn't give the runner the right to run over her.



Apparently, that instance is what caused warnings to both benches.



Problem with NCAA ball. Too many people still do believe it is baseball for girls/women and believe the players should just "toughen up" if they are going to play the game. That's okay. The day will come where criminal charges are filed, personal injury lawsuit filed and won and they will not have a choice.

Personally, ejection wouldn't be a second thought especially after what had already occurred in the game.

BTW, the ejected player was given a two-game suspension and is not eligible for this game, nor the next if they advance.[/QUOTE]

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.

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.

agree with KJUmp
 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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"

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."

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).

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.

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.

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

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").

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).

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.

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

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

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

Granted.

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.

I did say " ;) ;) :)"

Better than my legality! :cool: