Originally Posted by luvthegame (Post 844636)

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!!

Originally Posted by luvthegame (Post 844636)

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!!

Originally Posted by luvthegame (Post 844636)

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!!

Originally Posted by Andy (Post 844693)

You are absolutely correct in that the rule was administered correctly...I don't think that is in question.

What I (and almost everybody else on the board) would like to know is what act of interference did the runner commit in both instances? Yes, I understand that this is a judgement call, but I certainly didn't see any act of interference by the runner in either case. Granted, I was not there and only saw the play on TV.....maybe the umpire(s) on the field saw something we didn't. If so, I would like to know what that was so that I know to look for that same thing when I am on the field.

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst (Post 844701)

FWIW.....
People I am discussing this with (who support the call) do not need an runner to commit an "act" . They are satisfied that she interfered simply because she was where she was.

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA (Post 844720)

Wonder if they would say the same if it were there DD smashed in the face with a throw that never should have been made. I assume all your friends think every runner should be required to eat the dirt since turning in or out can and will result in the same INT call.

No problem, I'm sure the NAPIL support such idiocy, 100%

Originally Posted by HugoTafurst (Post 844722)

Don't shoot the messanger.... I don't even play piano.