Brian,
The Tennessee video is nothing more than F4 throwing a ball at R1. I saw no act of interference in that video.

Who exactly is Amy?

I very much did, as she was a retired runner. Furthermore, although there was no explanation, why was it shown in the interference section of the presentation?

I totally disagree with this being interference, bit I will call their ball the way they want it called. I don't have to like it.

They are fostering a dodgeball mentality.

Oh dear.

Go to the clinic and check the handout... OR, find someone who has been. This video was an example of a mistaken call. If I can find my handout, I'll scan and post.

(At the same time, feel free to go check this site's discussion when that actually happened. Panned as a horrible call by nearly everyone).

Don't call this interference. It's not.

Yeah, show me the "handout." There is no SUP handout. And get yourself an NCAA manual, Interference is one of the IN FOCUS item, specifically mentioning "interference by a runner already being declared out." No mention if this was being called incorrectly in 2012.

There may be handout from your group. It was panned on here, just like now. But what side has the rule support?

So what's the reverse? F6 doesn't throw it because retired R1 is in the throwing lane. And you tell the defensive coach . . .
?

I don't see why F6 can't clear a throwing lane by stepping to either side. I don't see how throwing at a runner's face is interference.

Especially this immediate to the action, and this far from the action.

She did, imho. I paused the video trying to figure out where the runners were when she got hit. Here's the screenshot. The ball is firmly planted in the grill.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/crabby_bob/8492857137/" title="ArizonaNotreDameINT by Crabby_Bob, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8095/8492857137_213bb550c1_c.jpg" width="800" height="485" alt="ArizonaNotreDameINT"></a>

As previously said, NFW is that INT. Her only move was defensive because the ball was thrown at her. We dissected this when it happened.

IMO, this was a pitiful call, period. There is no way this can be justified as interference without making unfounded presumptions.

As stated above, no. I'm sure there will be people who will try to justify an INT call, but I would consider it OOO.

If the defensive player doesn't throw it, then there is absolutely NO WAY an interference call is warranted. There's plenty of precedence in other situations (BR out of the runner's lane, batter in F2's throwing path on a base steal, etc.) where No Throw = No INT. To me, it wouldn't be a hard sell to convince the defensive coach of that.

I didn't participate in the discussion that took place after the NCAA play (at least I can't recall that I did). But it matches with the play in my OP, and one discussed at a rules clinic I attended a couple of nights ago. Only one veteran umpire at our clinic believed INT should be called, because he felt the rule on retired runners doesn't give the player any leeway if she continues to run in her path.

BTW, thanks for the screen capture, Crabby_Bob. I assume (since the YouTube video didn't go far enough) that the BR was ruled out for the retired runner's act. I find it fascinating from the screen capture that at the moment the ball hits the retired runner, the BR is well past first base.

Picture the typical "turn-two" play at second base. The fielder steps on the bag, pivots and fires the ball all in one fluid motion. The amount of time that elapses between the touch of the base (ie: the instant that the runer is out) and the ball hitting the runner can be maybe one second.

My questions to the "veteran umpire" would be:

- Can you really consider whatever the runner did in that fraction of a second between being put out and getting hit by the ball as "continuing to run in her path"?

Up until the instant that the base is touched, the runner is perfectly within her rights to be running on a straight line directly to the base. What exactly are you expecting her to do differently in the one second between being retired and being hit?

And she's not out until the umpire declares her out. Is the umpire making this call really going to signal the out, and the runner going to process that she really is out, all in that one second. That seems an unreasonable expectation.

- What do you think satisfies a requirement to not continue running the instant you're put out? Should the runner stop in her tracks? Veer off? Duck?

- Do you expect the runner to begin veering off or to start ducking before she's even put or declared out?

If you think that she has some responsibility to "get out of the way", and she doesn't reasonably have time to make an evasive move the second she's called out, then the only way to do that would be to stop/veer off/duck before she's even put out.

This requires a runner to act as if she is out (get out of the way) when she is still a legal and viable runner. Okay, so let's say she does this. Then, the fielder at second drops the ball or misses the bag. Ooops! Now the runner is not out and we have just severely handicapped her effort to run the bases by requiring her to act as if she's out when she really wasn't!