WCWS Oregon-Tennesee Interference
 

Anybody elkse think that wasn't interference?

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

Gee, where did we see that play before?

That one had me scratching my head. If you really think that's interference (I don't) then why should the umpires have to huddle up and discuss it for five minutes before making a decision. It either is or it ain't and you either call it right away or you don't. What is there to think about or hash over?

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 an ASA rep - they're using NCAA rukes.

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


Doh! Corrected

I would now love, LOVE to see a runner turn out coming into 2B and still get hit with the throw and see what they are going to do with that.

As it is now, the NCAA has basically endorsed drilling a player for an automatic out. I guess they better consider mandating the face masks on the helmets......not for batting, but running!!!

Before even seeing the replay it looked to me like that throw was purposely directly at the runner. She didn't even attempt to clear the throw it was sidearmed directly into the runners throat.

Terrible call. The ump was looking for justification for killing the play. What does NCAA say would NOT be interference on a play like that? Since it seems like every time a runner is hit with a throw they are calling the interference, I' d love to know when it would NOT be.

The sad part is this is the second time it has happened in the post season and you would think a second crew would get it right. Then again, I'm not really sure who made the call. U3 looked lost when it happened, it seemed PU was NOT watching the ball, but looking at 1B waiting for the ball to arrive.

No tv or internet. No comments.

Could someone describe the play?

Thanks

Mike,

They are going to call interference

F4 to F6 to face of R1 who was slowing down, but stayed straight.

Yes, this was the second time. I really think you have a great point. I think U3 killed the play when the ball went rolling away ad then in the discussion, it must have been brought up that since he killed the play, he'd have to rule the runner out for interference.

He did look lost. Big difference between the way he approached the play and his call/mechanics and the PU in the other game who called the interference on the last play of the game or even on the B/R interference. Both were done by confidently killing the play, pointing to the culprit, and signaling the out. Not this time.

Ronald, one out - the shortstop was making a play at second on R1 from first and after the out she threw the ball right into the face/throat of R1 on her "attempt" to retire B/R at first. R1 was about 15 feet from base, so no chance to slide nor to duck out of the way. As ball rolled away, U3 hesitated and then killed the play and looked very confused. After a discussion with the three umpires, the crew talked to both head coaches and then ruled B/R out.

On edit: I noticed that the PU did all the talking to the coaches and made the final call. Is that proper? Especially since I noticed that the PU was looking to first for the ball to arrive.

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?