The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Softball
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 03:27pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
WCWS Oregon-Tennesee Interference

Anybody elkse think that wasn't interference?

In addition, anybody else think that the Oregon F6 threw at the runner?
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 03:49pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 05:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 1,640
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?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 06:10pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:45pm.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 06:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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.
__________________
Rich Ives
Different does not equate to wrong
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 06:45pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Ives View Post
Why an ASA rep - they're using NCAA rukes.
Because I know where the room is where they keep them?


Doh! Corrected
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.

Last edited by IRISHMAFIA; Sat Jun 02, 2012 at 06:47pm.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 03, 2012, 01:04pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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!

Last edited by luvthegame; Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 01:26pm.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 03, 2012, 03:06pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 03, 2012, 03:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 870
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.
__________________
Tony
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 03, 2012, 03:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by tcannizzo View Post
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?
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jun 03, 2012, 10:19pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA View Post
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!!

Last edited by luvthegame; Sun Jun 03, 2012 at 10:32pm.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 05:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
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.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 09:36am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Katy, Texas
Posts: 8,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
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.
__________________
I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates, who said, 'I drank what?'”

West Houston Mike
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jun 04, 2012, 10:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by luvthegame View Post
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.
__________________
It's what you learn after you think you know it all that's important!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Jun 02, 2012, 07:26pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 14,565
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!!!
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question from WCWS HollowMan Softball 52 Mon May 28, 2012 09:43pm
wcws ump ronald Softball 14 Sun Jun 05, 2011 12:00am
Memphis v. Tennesee SAK Basketball 6 Thu Jan 06, 2011 10:55am
WCWS - Umpires PublicBJ Softball 10 Wed Jun 15, 2005 08:08am
WCWS last night coachfanmom Softball 7 Fri Jun 03, 2005 01:21pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:04am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1