Jump to content

Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member
stkjock

CWS - FPSR UA vs OSU

Recommended Posts


Remove these ads by becoming a Premium Member

Correct by rule. Stupid rule, too. If the runner chooses not to slide, the pivot man can easily create an interference call just by moving in the same direction as the runner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andydufresne said:

Correct by rule. Stupid rule, too. If the runner chooses not to slide, the pivot man can easily create an interference call just by moving in the same direction as the runner.

So, how do you avoid being called for interference on a "stupid" rule?.....Slide....then no worries about the "stupid " rule. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’ll certainly be a good discussion at the NCAA meetings next year.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

It’ll certainly be a good discussion at the NCAA meetings next year.

Yes, wasn’t there a no call in supers or regionals. The runner didn’t slide but was safe because of off the bag. Esteemed ump made the no call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andydufresne said:

Correct by rule. Stupid rule, too. If the runner chooses not to slide, the pivot man can easily create an interference call just by moving in the same direction as the runner.

I thought NCAA rules required a slide unless you weren’t within distance to slide.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know ....... was it called because F6 hesitated the throw?  Is the hesitation what impeded the completion of the play ....... Hmmm ....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thunderheads said:

I don't know ....... was it called because F6 hesitated the throw?  Is the hesitation what impeded the completion of the play ....... Hmmm ....

I thought that too, that the only reason the runner got into his area was because he double clutched waiting on someone to cover first. But the more I thought about it.....would that really matter? It's not like the SS waited so long that there wasn't a legitimate play at 1B, it was still a very close play. So while he did indeed double-clutch...does he lose his interference protection just because of that? I'm not sure why. The runner certainly intended to get out of the way, but ended up choosing to go towards the fielder. While the runner didn't cause the double clutch, he was pretty much in the fielder's face by the time the SS did throw the ball. After further reflection, I'm pretty good with this call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jimurray said:

I thought NCAA rules required a slide unless you weren’t within distance to slide.  

Slide or run in a direction away from the play (and "away" can include going straight to / through the bag, if the fielder has moved to one side).

52 minutes ago, scrounge said:

So while he did indeed double-clutch...does he lose his interference protection just because of that?

No.  Whether there's a realistic chance of retiring BR has no bearing on the call since it's both a safety and an INT rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are the umpire and you see R1 go in standing, then you should immediately be thinking possible FPSR.  In this case, R1 ducked down and in doing so, his momentum carried him towards the fielder on the left side of the bag.  This is FPSR and it was the correct call.

- The fact that the runner never made it to the base is irrelevant
- The fact that the runner never made contact with the fielder is irrelevant
- The fact that the runner's actions were unintentional is irrelevant
- The fact that the fielder double-clutched is irrelevant
- The fact the the defense couldn't have completed the double-play is irrelevant

If you are a runner, your best option is always to slide legally on these plays.  Going in standing is almost always a bad idea unless you're sure you can peel off on the opposite side of the fielder.  Eduardo Perez, once again, shows a complete lack of knowledge of NCAA FPSR.

The Facebook page for the DII National Umpire Development Program (Scott Taylor?) said the following:

"According to former Secretary-Rules Editor Paronto, if the runner has to duck (as shown in this clip) he has interfered. Simple rule of thumb “either go down or get out of the way”(Paronto Interp.)"

I am not aware of this interpretation being published anywhere.  Does anyone know where it's from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

If you are the umpire and you see R1 go in standing, then you should immediately be thinking possible FPSR.  In this case, R1 ducked down and in doing so, his momentum carried him towards the fielder on the left side of the bag.  This is FPSR and it was the correct call.

- The fact that the runner never made it to the base is irrelevant
- The fact that the runner never made contact with the fielder is irrelevant
- The fact that the runner's actions were unintentional is irrelevant

If you are a runner, your best option is always to slide legally on these plays.  Going in standing is almost always a bad idea unless you're sure you can peel off on the opposite side of the fielder.  Eduardo Perez, once again, shows a complete lack of knowledge of NCAA FPSR.

As always Steve, good stuff .....

the way I saw this (in slow motion of course :) ) .... but it almost looks like F6 sees the direction of R1, and actually moves in the same direction as R1.  Not that that necessarily matters, but ...    the reason I said this is because if F6 moves in right field area ....we don't have FPSR 

At the end of the day, the way this play happened, it's the right call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Thunderheads said:

As always Steve, good stuff .....

the way I saw this (in slow motion of course :) ) .... but it almost looks like F6 sees the direction of R1, and actually moves in the same direction as R1.  Not that that necessarily matters, but ...    the reason I said this is because if F6 moves in right field area ....we don't have FPSR 

At the end of the day, the way this play happened, it's the right call

I don't think F6 stepped to his right to draw the call (I know that's not what you're saying).  He was going to throw and then saw nobody covering first base.  He double-clutched and then threw hoping someone would get to the throw.  I don't think R1's actions had anything to do with F6's hesitation, but on FPSR, the usual axiom of "no hinderance, no interference" doesn't apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, grayhawk said:

I don't think F6 stepped to his right to draw the call (I know that's not what you're saying).  He was going to throw and then saw nobody covering first base.  He double-clutched and then threw hoping someone would get to the throw.  I don't think R1's actions had anything to do with F6's hesitation, but on FPSR, the usual axiom of "no hinderance, no interference" doesn't apply.

?? :HS 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the National Umpire Development Program:

 

Despite what the announcers are saying, the runner must legally slide or avoid interfering with the attempt on the B/R. According to former Secretary-Rules Editor Paronto, if the runner has to duck (as shown in this clip) he has interfered. Simple rule of thumb “either go down or get out of the way”(Paronto Interp.)

This was an excellent call by Chris Coskey. “Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule” (NCAA 8-4).

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Forest Ump said:

From the National Umpire Development Program:

 

Despite what the announcers are saying, the runner must legally slide or avoid interfering with the attempt on the B/R. According to former Secretary-Rules Editor Paronto, if the runner has to duck (as shown in this clip) he has interfered. Simple rule of thumb “either go down or get out of the way”(Paronto Interp.)

This was an excellent call by Chris Coskey. “Whether the defense could have completed the double play has no bearing on the applicability of this rule” (NCAA 8-4).

 

 

Just what I said three hours ago and grayhawk said two hours ago.

The good news is that the talking heads are so "confidentally wrong" that they are qualified for a major league announcing gig.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2018 at 10:30 PM, Richvee said:

So, how do you avoid being called for interference on a "stupid" rule?.....Slide....then no worries about the "stupid " rule. 

That's not my point. The umpire called it correctly. By rule, the runner interfered and has no defense.

The rationale for the rule is both safety and interference. The runner didn't do anything to alter the play, and didn't do anything to endanger himself or the defensive player. Despite that, the result of proper enforcement of the rule is the offense was penalized an additional out and had a run taken off the board because the defense butchered the play. It's interference by fiat.To me, that's a bad rule. I get that not everybody agrees. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, andydufresne said:

That's not my point. The umpire called it correctly. By rule, the runner interfered and has no defense.

The rationale for the rule is both safety and interference. The runner didn't do anything to alter the play, and didn't do anything to endanger himself or the defensive player. Despite that, the result of proper enforcement of the rule is the offense was penalized an additional out and had a run taken off the board because the defense butchered the play. It's interference by fiat.To me, that's a bad rule. I get that not everybody agrees. 

How can you be so obtuse? | How can you be so Obtuse? | image tagged in the shawshank redemption | made w/ Imgflip meme maker

Couldn't help myself...... so sorry

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, andydufresne said:

That's not my point. The umpire called it correctly. By rule, the runner interfered and has no defense.

The rationale for the rule is both safety and interference. The runner didn't do anything to alter the play, and didn't do anything to endanger himself or the defensive player. Despite that, the result of proper enforcement of the rule is the offense was penalized an additional out and had a run taken off the board because the defense butchered the play. It's interference by fiat.To me, that's a bad rule. I get that not everybody agrees. 

How would you write the rule to keep both safety and int and not have it apply in the situation presented?  You can't wait until there is contact becuase then it's too late to have the safety aspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, andydufresne said:

That's not my point. The umpire called it correctly. By rule, the runner interfered and has no defense.

The rationale for the rule is both safety and interference. The runner didn't do anything to alter the play, and didn't do anything to endanger himself or the defensive player. Despite that, the result of proper enforcement of the rule is the offense was penalized an additional out and had a run taken off the board because the defense butchered the play. It's interference by fiat.To me, that's a bad rule. I get that not everybody agrees. 

The rational for the rule is safety. It is enforced as interference. It's a harsh penalty put in place to protect students. These kids have been playing with this rule since freshman baseball. They know what they can and can't do (not always) and what the penalty will be if they violate it. The runner ran towards the fielder as the fielder was making the play. How can you say he did not alter the play? We don't make this call based on how severely the players safety was endangered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve read all kinds of bull crap the last few days from “umpires” on various sites, Facebook and Twitter. Stuff like...if the crew had gotten together they would have discovered there was no one covering 1st...the runner veered off and the fielder should have gone to the outfield side. 

Here’s the deal...

Did the runner slide in a direct line between 1st and 2nd base? No

Did the runner give himself up and avoid the fielder? No

Since he didn’t do one of those two things, we have interference. R1 is out, B/R is out and all other runners return to their time of pitch base. 

Pretty simple stuff. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×