NCAA Video: What do you have? Or nothing?

[johnnyg08]

[mstaylor]

I can see support for interference or no call. Most times if the runner is running in a natural pace and there is no contact, you leave it alone. However, he did cause him to stop and get to the ball late. He could have easily gone behind him and it would have been nothing. Did they call interference? The problem is the U3 has no look at the play. The PU has a good look, the U1 is secondary.

[MPLSMatt]

I called INT in almost the same situation last year and I was advised by one of our rule gurus not to make that call unless there is contact, as long as the runner doesn't change pace or do something else to interfere. A lot of people on here disagree. BTW, this situation was the closest I came last year to having to eject a coach, as he was obviously not a fan of the INT I'd called.

[Jocko]

Hard to say. I see runners slow their pace sometimes to be sure they arent hit by the ball. Never called INT without contact. Did he call it?

[mstaylor]

Trout:

There is slowing to avoid the ball, no problem. However, there is slowing to place yourself in the fielder's view, that's interference, contact or not.

[johnnyg08]

Hard to say. I see runners slow their pace sometimes to be sure they arent hit by the ball. Never called INT without contact. Did he call it?

I will post their ruling after it appears as though the thread has run its course.

Consider the language in these rules:

7.09j OBR, NCAA 8-5d

[sdix00]

Before I review the rule.

TIME. That's Interference. R1 is out. BR to 1B.

Contact is not necessary to call INT. If the fielder is moving to make a play on the ball, R1 MUST avoid him and cannot interfere, alter the pattern, etc.

I know it's tough to see it as U3 was probably turning with his chest to ball, but if I see this, I am calling it.

[noumpere]

The umpires need to decide if the runner caused the fielder to slow or if the fielder slowed on his own. Hows that for straddling the fence. lol.

And U2 didnt turn around in time to see it so one of the other umpires should of called it and or made a safe signal to show that it was nothing.

[UmpJM]

The umpires need to decide if the runner caused the fielder to slow or if the fielder slowed on his own. Hows that for straddling the fence. lol.

And U2 didnt turn around in time to see it so one of the other umpires should of called it and or made a safe signal to show that it was nothing.

Pretty much how I see it. From the video, I would judge that the fielder slowed on his own.

Though I don't believe he actually saw it, U3 (in "B") did signal "that's nothing" with a safe mechanic.

JM

[dumbdumb]

What's wrong with that lard butt pitcher. That's his ball all the way. He booted the ball. If he puts the glove on the ground like he is suppose too, we aren't watching this play. He should have had that ball easily. What a can of corn play that was, and he has always made that play on that type ball all year long. Even the second baseman stopped dead in his tracks to watch him field it, and then had to move forward when he saw the lard butt give an ole at the ball and let it go right under his glove. What a way for this pitcher to butcher a little league play, letting the ball go right under his glove, and pass it off to the second baseman who knows his pitcher has made that can of corn play all year long. Boy was he ticked at his pitcher for dogging it, and letting the ball go right under his glove. Tell this lard butt to lose some more weight and bounce off the mound and field his position like he gives a rats butt.

All I know is that all 4 umpires are going to the Regionals, with 3 going on to the Super Regionals.

[SanDiegoSteve]

What's wrong with that lard butt pitcher. That's his ball all the way. He booted the ball. If he puts the glove on the ground like he is suppose too, we aren't watching this play. He should have had that ball easily. What a can of corn play that was, and he has always made that play on that type ball all year long. Even the second baseman stopped dead in his tracks to watch him field it, and then had to move forward when he saw the lard butt give an ole at the ball and let it go right under his glove. What a way for this pitcher to butcher a little league play, letting the ball go right under his glove, and pass it off to the second baseman who knows his pitcher has made that can of corn play all year long. Boy was he ticked at his pitcher for dogging it, and letting the ball go right under his glove. Tell this lard butt to lose some more weight and bounce off the mound and field his position like he gives a rats butt.

All I know is that all 4 umpires are going to the Regionals, with 3 going on to the Super Regionals.

^^^ This answer. No INT. Should have been fielded by F1. It was a well-placed bunt. F4 didn't have a prayer at throwing out the BR, even without R1 legally trying to run to 2nd base. R1 did not alter his pace, or try to get in the way, he was doing his job. Had he stopped in front of F4, you could make a case. F4 got such a late jump that R1 ended up in his path, and it was entirely F4's fault that he did.

[NFUA_44]

F4 pulls up when he see's F1 boot it and takes a small step back before starting forward again. With the benefit of watching it in slow mo, I'm giving the R1 a pass since he just did his job and made no other moves to interfere.

That said, in real time on the field I can see it going either way, though it appears that U3 had it, and judged it as nothing.

[johnnyg08]

So, it seems as though we have a different standard for interference than we do for obstruction. I'm not saying that it should be the same, but there seems to be a distinct difference where as the defense can obstruct by causing the runner to slow down or alter his path without creating contact. It seems be be a different standard for Interference

[zm1283]

I have nothing here simply because F4 waited back and acted like he was a spectator. If he comes hard at the ball and R1 causes him to pull up, I would get the INT, but as it is, he stopped on his own and the runner ran in front of him.

[Umpire in Chief]

I don't have INT, but wouldn't have a problem if anybody else called it.

[mstaylor]

U3 did show a safe sign but he really turned too late to see the play develop.

[johnnyg08]

U3 did show a safe sign but he really turned too late to see the play develop.

I thought that exact same thing. By the time he "that's nothinged" R1 was already past F4. Based on that camera angle, it seems likely that he didn't see all of the elements of that play to make a call...but we don't know that for sure. I know we're not disparaging the umpire...the video is posted here for us to discuss and learn.

[NFUA_44]

U3 did show a safe sign but he really turned too late to see the play develop.

I thought that exact same thing. By the time he "that's nothinged" R1 was already past F4. Based on that camera angle, it seems likely that he didn't see all of the elements of that play to make a call...but we don't know that for sure. I know we're not disparaging the umpire...the video is posted here for us to discuss and learn.

I thought the same, but once I really went back and looked at it he peeked at it originally, and then comes back to it right as the contact was happening. As someone else pointed out above, I think it may be that he was so late making a move to play the ball, because of F1 booting it, that the umpires gave the runner a pass. I mean let's face it, the runner saw the play go down (and probably knew the bunt was coming) and he was never expecting F4 to be coming in to make a play since that ball wasn't supposed to be anywhere close to him.

[Jocko]

I don't think I'm calling INT here. I got it clean.

[The Adjudicator]

My take is that it is a text book INT but not a call that is going to be enforced without contact as the runner is doing what he should be doing. If F4 wants that call he needs to initiate contact, if not play on.

[sdix00]

I don't understand the argument that the runner is doing what he is supposed to be doing.

The rules clearly state that he is supposed to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, which is not what R1 did.

[johnnyg08]

I don't understand the argument that the runner is doing what he is supposed to be doing.

The rules clearly state that he is supposed to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, which is not what R1 did.

Thank you. That's what I posted earlier about there being a different standard for INT vs OBS.

Everybody I talk to states that there should be contact though. I will let the cat out of the bag though. I saw this clip on replay while I was up w/ my sick daughter at like 1:30am. I tivo'd it and put it on here for you guys...(this was Friday morning), then Friday night, I had the exact same play, except not a bunt...and in my judgment the runner impeded the fielder from making the play and I banged him for INT.

There are people on here who disagree with me, but I just don't see how that doesn't meet the standard when you don't need contact for obstruction??

[SanDiegoSteve]

I don't understand the argument that the runner is doing what he is supposed to be doing.

The rules clearly state that he is supposed to avoid a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball, which is not what R1 did.

Thank you. That's what I posted earlier about there being a different standard for INT vs OBS.

Everybody I talk to states that there should be contact though. I will let the cat out of the bag though. I saw this clip on replay while I was up w/ my sick daughter at like 1:30am. I tivo'd it and put it on here for you guys...(this was Friday morning), then Friday night, I had the exact same play, except not a bunt...and in my judgment the runner impeded the fielder from making the play and I banged him for INT.

There are people on here who disagree with me, but I just don't see how that doesn't meet the standard when you don't need contact for obstruction??

Okay. So what did the umpires on the field rule, since it appears we are done debating the merits of whether or not Interference? I don't think we are saying there needs to be contact, but I don't see how R1 prevented F4 from making a play he would likely not have made anyway. F4's first move was to stop, thinking F1 had the play. After he saw that F1 wasn't going to get there, he took off. Had he read the play better, he would have gotten in on the grass and R1 would have passed behind him. That's how I thing people are seeing this as not INT. It was a tough play, not a routine out. It was an excellent bunt--one that usually results in a base hit, even in professional baseball. I think the only reason it was even close is that the BR was not a speedster himself. A Ricky Henderson-type would have beaten it out without a throw. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it! :)

[Jocko]

I agree, no contact necessary. I just don't think on this particular play I'd call INT. I wouldn't disagree with him if he did, just saying....

[johnnyg08]

They ruled no interference. Nobody came out of the dugout either from either team. Or should I saw U2 ruled no interference. I can't disagree with the no call, but I also can't disagree with me banging out my guy for INT in the same game.