WCWS Oregon-Tennesee Interference

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Andy

Anybody elkse think that wasn't interference?

In addition, anybody else think that the Oregon F6 threw at the runner?

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.

[Rich Ives]

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 ASA Rep involved.

Why an ASA rep - they're using NCAA rukes.

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Rich Ives

Why an ASA rep - they're using NCAA rukes.

Because I know where the room is where they keep them?


Doh! Corrected

[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.

[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!!

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

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!!

Citation? I certainly cannot find anything which supports that call in either game.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

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!!

If you are saying they administered the rule correctly, you are right. However, the JUDGEMENT that this (and the 1st one) was interference is blatantly horrific. If their legitimate judgement is that these runners interfered, they their judgement is so poor that they don't belong on the field - at ANY level.

[Andy]

Originally Posted by luvthegame

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!!

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.