WCWS Oregon-Tennesee Interference

[Andy]

Anybody elkse think that wasn't interference?

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

[KJUmp]

Originally Posted by Andy

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?

[BretMan]

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?

[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?

[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.

[IRISHMAFIA]

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!!!