I'll disagree. U1 should not be reading PU - he should be reading U3. If U1 reads the (appropriate) chase by U3, he reverts to a two umpire system - takes R1 to second and then picks up BR. If I were evaluating, my question to U1 is "who has the BR?" Sure it looks good by having a runner thrown out at the plate, but a cut and snap throw at the BR would have been u-g-l-y!

In further review, R1 may have been stealing or very fast, as she is past 2b when the ball hits the wall (hit and run maybe?). U1 may have been working down for the steal and that's why he didn't read.

That's not to say that PU could have used a better two umpire holding zone -deeper into foul territory and closer to the plate while (properly) reading the play (R1 was not slowing down).

With the NCAA's option to chase or not chase, all umpires have two reads: 1 - the ball (in who's area) and 2 - did my partner chase: "Read the ball, read your partner." It seems that U1 did not do this properly. And doesn't seem to be any communication.

Maybe. If he's going out, he takes an odd angle for it, and not many steps. I see him at 22 seconds, but he's not running anywhere that helps him with either distance or angle - and still at 22 the ball has already hit the wall. Seems kind of halfway to me, still, even after your explanation.

I agree that PU doesn't do himself any favors here, but perhaps he didn't read this as going out for the same reason I didn't. that ball gets to the wall AWFULLY quickly, and never looks like a trouble ball to me - so I have to think PU was not expecting U3 to go out.

Good points on U1.

Question I have on the bolded part, is if the PU reads that R1 (who we'll assume was on the move) is not slowing down at 2nd, the PU's movement from behind the plate should be straight to a holding zone between HP and 3rd as opposed to how its diagramed in the Manual?

Don't know about NCAA, but if it was correct, it is a bad mechanic as it leaves 1 & 2 uncovered.

Who am I to disagree with the manual?

If I were the plate umpire on this play, after reading U3 chasing, I'm moving to the holding zone knowing that I have responsibility for R1 at 3rd or home. Once I read that R1 is rounding 3rd, I'm moving back to the plate (while not being in the runner's way), maybe even trying to get point of plate. The key is reading the runner and the throw.

And when you look to your right and see U1 standing next to you? :)

We will have a nice little talk, maybe as soon as the next inning.

I agree - there is no way PU can get to all three spots in the diagram in sequence. If you read the hit to be for extra bases (the diagram on page 102), you go to the holding zone down the third base line and skip the circle. The diagram really should be changed. (See page 101 for the singles case.)

Another thought. The fact that PU was making no effort to work back toward the plate suggests to me that U1 had communicated that he had the plate covered. BWDIK.

Really? I'm not sure I would have interference on this even in Fed? Why? When the throw actually gets to the first baseman, the runner is sort of back in the running lane. I can see an argument both ways on this, but I am still putting the onus on the catcher to have a throw close to the target. That throw was way off target, to the point I find it real difficult to award the defense an out for the RLV. Had the throw been lower or more in line with the base, then I might have a RLV, but that throw was so far off I'd have a hard time making that call.

Another good example of why the NCAA should divide fly ball coverage regardless of whether an umpire goes out. U3 feels obligated to go out so that he can assume responsibility for the call. But in all reality, where can be possibly go? Open up, face the ball and make the call. No need to waste an umpire. Yes, he did what he should have per the CCA Manual. He only has a slit second to read the play before reacting. When in doubt, go out. And for those who say he took a funny angle, WRONG! He takes an approach that gives him a proper angle to see through the play, as opposed to running at the ball like so many umpires do. That is why I refuse to use the word "chase" to describe "going out." We aren't chasing anything. Players chase the ball. Umpires do not.

Note that MD was commenting on the baseball play...

In FED baseball a "quality throw" is not required. If the batter-runner's presence out of the lane is the cause of the throw being bad (umpire judgment) then interference can be ruled.

FED softball does require a "quality throw" (ie: one that would have a reasonable chance of being caught by the fielder taking the throw).

Key point is in red. In that play, I don't see the poor throw as a result of the batter runner's position, but as simply a poor throw. I am not awarding the defense on that play when the throw was so poor that there was no way to get an out. If it were not for the umpires judgment, of the cause of the poor throw, the catcher could simply see the better- runner out of the running lane and heave a throw to the right fielder, but claim it was because the batter-runner was out of the running lane.

I had a similar play in a youth (7-8 grade) baseball game this year (while being observed), which used HS rules. Bunt was laid down, and the runner was out of the running lane going to first (inside the diamond). The catcher picked up the ball and fired a shot about 15 feet over the first baseman's head. The coach came out arguing the runner out of the lane. I did not accept his argument and he eventually went back. After the game the observer said I was correct because in a reasonable umpires judgment, the bad throw was a bad throw, not one caused buy the position of the runner.