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?

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.

Maybe it's a new POE :eek:

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.

Would someone describe what happened?

Rita

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.

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.

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.

How can you have OBS on a non-runner?

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%

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

If you noticed, I was talking about your "friends" :)

Link to video
 

Here is a link to the video if you want to see it again. It is hard for me not to think F6 wasn't throwing at R1.


Oregon Shortstop Hits Baseball Runner In The Face With Softball | SportsGrid