WCWS Oregon-Tennesee Interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Now that this call has appeared twice in high profile post season games, both televised and both highly viewed, will NCAA come out with a public stand on their official ruling?

It scares me that someone may just be dumb enough to make it open season on all runners. Hell, just as well play kickball or dodgeball.

[Crabby_Bob]

Originally Posted by RKBUmp

Now that this call has appeared twice in high profile post season games, both televised and both highly viewed, will NCAA come out with a public stand on their official ruling?

Maybe it's a new POE

[RKBUmp]

I can already see it coming in the next tournament. We are going to have the defense purposely throwing the ball at the runners because they just saw it called twice on national TV.

[Rita C]

Would someone describe what happened?

Rita

[RKBUmp]

Ball high hopped to F4, tosses to F6 for play at 2nd. R1 about 15 from 2nd when F6 catches the ball and starts throw to 1st. U3 hasnt even gotten hand fully up yet to signal out when throw hits runner in the throat. R1 did not go down, but did appear to pull up slightly, F6 made absolutely no attempt to clear runner on throw, sidearmed ball directly into R1. To me personally it appeared F6 purposely threw ball into R1. U3 kills play, all 3 umpires get together and discuss situation, they call in both coaches and have more discussion and then call R1 for interference and declare batter/runner out also.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

That is absolutely terrible. Just as bad as the last one.

THs are idiots. There ought to be a rule? Its already there!

If I'm Coach Weekly, I'm probably not leaving that field voluntarily and definitely not until I had a UIC and/or NCAA Rep involved.

Why?? He knew the rule!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

Why?? He knew the rule!

I assume you are talking about Weekly and this is why I wouldn't leave the field voluntarily. At this point in the season, if you have a misinterpretation, the coach has to fight for a correction.

I cannot fathom the idea that U3, in either case, actually stated with true belief, that he judged the retired runner to commit an act of interference. That would mean they would have had to made some type of move to cause the INT. And if that isn't what the umpire clearly states, I saw no INT, did you?

BTW, the NCAA repeatedly notes that interference is an "act" by someone, player, coach, umpire, media member, spectator, etc.

[tcannizzo]

Just watched the play, and something that hasn't brought up yet was how F4 after tossing to F6 crossed from behind the basepath to in front of it, only a few steps away from R1. Very close to OBS, and replaying it multiple times there seems to be a minute "alteration" of R1, very minute. But at a minimum, F4 passing in front of F1 would have made it difficult for R1 to see F6.

In this case, even though R1 was retired before F4 passed in front of R1, IF OBS was ruled, then R1 could not be called out, except for the overriding BS INT.

Agree that was a terrible call, even if F4 had stayed back. R1 did NOTHING that would constitute INT.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by tcannizzo

Just watched the play, and something that hasn't brought up yet was how F4 after tossing to F6 crossed from behind the basepath to in front of it, only a few steps away from R1. Very close to OBS, and replaying it multiple times there seems to be a minute "alteration" of R1, very minute. But at a minimum, F4 passing in front of F1 would have made it difficult for R1 to see F6.

In this case, even though R1 was retired before F4 passed in front of R1, IF OBS was ruled, then R1 could not be called out, except for the overriding BS INT.
.

How can you have OBS on a non-runner?

[tcannizzo]

By rule, you can't.
And I suppose this holds true for a retired runner.

But then again, these games are examples where the rules don't really matter do they?

[PSUchem]

Something else that hasn't been brought up yet was how R1, after she was put out, seemed to slow her running a bit and "pull up" into a taller standing position. She also seemed to brace herself for the throw. Looked to me like she was TRYING to get hit by the ball by making herself as big as possible to break up the double play. She was close enough to the bag that she should have been going down into a slide by then.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

Something else that hasn't been brought up yet was how R1, after she was put out, seemed to slow her running a bit and "pull up" into a taller standing position. She also seemed to brace herself for the throw. Looked to me like she was TRYING to get hit by the ball by making herself as big as possible to break up the double play. She was close enough to the bag that she should have been going down into a slide by then.

Yeah, I like tough players. Ones who say, "Bring it On, Cream Puff! I am only three feet away from you and I am going to put my face right into the path of your rocket arm!"

Kinda like the batter who intentionally gets HBP on the fingers, wrists, elbows, ankles and knees. Way different from the wusses to turn to take it in the fanny.

Even the TH's got this one right, if she had been sliding at the point where she got hit, she would have never reached the base.

The "pull up" was what I saw when F4 flashed right in front of her, which triggered the possibility (or impossibility) of OBS.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by PSUchem

Something else that hasn't been brought up yet was how R1, after she was put out, seemed to slow her running a bit and "pull up" into a taller standing position. She also seemed to brace herself for the throw. Looked to me like she was TRYING to get hit by the ball by making herself as big as possible to break up the double play. She was close enough to the bag that she should have been going down into a slide by then.

I find it amazing how many people want to stretch rules to satisfy a call. It is real simple, the runner doesn't have to disappear nor slide. Sort of curious how people would react if this player wasn't wearing a cage and ended up in the hospital with weekly appointments with the plastic surgeon for the next three months.

[tcannizzo]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I find it amazing how many people want to stretch rules to satisfy a call. It is real simple, the runner doesn't have to disappear nor slide. Sort of curious how people would react if this player wasn't wearing a cage and ended up in the hospital with weekly appointments with the plastic surgeon for the next three monts.

Or worse, permanent brain damage....
Well, according to some, she got what she deserved.

[luvthegame]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I assume you are talking about Weekly and this is why I wouldn't leave the field voluntarily. At this point in the season, if you have a misinterpretation, the coach has to fight for a correction.

I cannot fathom the idea that U3, in either case, actually stated with true belief, that he judged the retired runner to commit an act of interference. That would mean they would have had to made some type of move to cause the INT. And if that isn't what the umpire clearly states, I saw no INT, did you?

BTW, the NCAA repeatedly notes that interference is an "act" by someone, player, coach, umpire, media member, spectator, etc.

The NCAA Rules Interpreter is in attendance at the WCWS. This rule...which, because of the sit at UA, apparently was discussed. The rule (as currently written) has an affect and penalty. The umpires "huddled" together, as I understand it, to make sure they were on the same page as to the affect on this play. They agreed, and when it was explained it to the coaches, neither coach objected because they knew the rule.

Regardless of how much we may conject, opine, pontificate, object or project (ie...future actions by the defense) the rule was administered correctly!

There is one opinion that matters....and is the final determinate...

And it is not yours or mine!!

The umpires made the correct call at UA and in this case!!

Whether our opinion differs or not!!

Kudo's to them!!