FL @ LSU

[Bumps]

BR in inside fair territory on a 1-2-3 double play. Umps got together and still missed it. Pretty obvious on live, but even moremobviousnon replay.

Not an LSU fan at all, but they took it in the shorts on this one...

[Bumps]

Coach Mainieri basically calls out umpires in mid inning interview, says they had no explanation for him.

[maven]

Inside the line, sure, but was there INT? maven

[Bumps]

Most definitely. F2 had to come way inside, Br almost on grass inside, ball hits F3's glove. Really almost a text book (smartphone) call.

[UmpJM]

Bumps,

 

If the ball hit F3's glove, how on earth did the BR interfere with F3's opportunity to catch the throw?

 

I didn't see the play and your description is remarkably unclear as to the specifics of what occurred.

 

JM

[Bumps]

Bases loaded, ball hit to F1, F1 throws to F2, BR is running to 1B, but running in the dirt on the fair side of the line, F2 throws to F1 ball hits glove, BECAUSE F2 can actually play and hit his glove. Ball deflects out of glove. Hope you are remarkably clear now...

[UmpJM]

Bumps,

 

As described, there is no violation under NCAA rules.

 

(That's remarkable that the pitcher fielded the ball, threw to the catcher, and then got over to cover 1B for the return throw from the catcher. I'd like to see THAT play!.)

 

You're welcome.

 

JM

[bam]

I googled/youtubed/binged the play.  Couldn't find it.  Sounds to me like there was no INT, as F3 was able to play the ball.  The INT has to hinder F3's ability to field the throw.  Sounds like F3 was able to field the throw. 

 

Nothing is yet remarkably clear. 

[bam]

Coach Mainieri basically calls out umpires in mid inning interview, says they had no explanation for him.

This is beautiful. 

 

Let me translate:

 

"I didn't get the answer I wanted so I'm going to trash the umps"

 

Channeling Ives. 

[BalkHawk]

I got E1.

 

Once you fix your boner, I'll have E3.

 

I'll keep an eye out for video.

[BalkHawk]

Game replays tomorrow. DVR is set.

[maineump]

Sounds like nothing if 1B had it hit his glove and it bounced out. Throw got through, quality throw - play on. Keep whining coach

[zm1283]

The NCAA rule does have a provision for "altering the throw" that is in the rules now in addition to interfering with the fielder's ability to catch the throw.  I think we would have to see the play to judge if that happened or not.

[maven]

The NCAA rule does have a provision for "altering the throw" that is in the rules now in addition to interfering with the fielder's ability to catch the throw.  I think we would have to see the play to judge if that happened or not.

 

Can you expand on that, zm? If the sense of "altering the throw" is akin to umpire INT by the PU, then obviously it wouldn't apply to the BR in the running lane. But if it's about forcing a bad throw to avoid hitting the BR in the back, then it might.

[noumpere]

 

The NCAA rule does have a provision for "altering the throw" that is in the rules now in addition to interfering with the fielder's ability to catch the throw.  I think we would have to see the play to judge if that happened or not.

 

Can you expand on that, zm? If the sense of "altering the throw" is akin to umpire INT by the PU, then obviously it wouldn't apply to the BR in the running lane. But if it's about forcing a bad throw to avoid hitting the BR in the back, then it might.

 

It was added because without it some coach might claim "but the ball hit the runner and so the runner didn't interfere with the FIELDER and so its not interference."  It was made clear at the meetings that we were not going to reward a poor throw (as they sometimes want us to do in HS).  Given that the ball hit the mitt then this provision doesn't seem likely to apply here.

[UmpJM]

zm,

 

Added in 2013?

 

JM

[noumpere]

zm,

 

Added in 2013?

 

JM

Yes.  This is the new AR:

 

A.R. 1 -- If the batter-runner is outside the running lane and alters the throw or interferes with the attempted catch of the thrown ball or is hit by the throw, the batter-runner shall be called out. Exception --The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot running lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base and for the sole purpose of touching first or attempting to avoid a tag. He may exit the running lane on his last stride or step if he has been running legally within the running lane up to that point.

[Bumps]

None of these were the cars, BR out...

[grayhawk]

I believe this play is coming up on ESPNU in a few minutes.

[MidAmUmp]

Didn't see it, but based on what you guys are describing I would have to lean towards no interference.  From your descriptions, the ball was catchable.

[grayhawk]

Just saw it on the re-broadcast.

 

BR was in fair territory the entire way.

F2 stepped a couple of steps in front of the plate to make the throw.

F3 was stretched out to the right (toward second base) expecting an inside throw.

The throw caused F3 to reach slightly to his left (but still to the BR's left) to attempt the catch.

F3 took his eyes off of it at the last second and it popped out of his glove.

BR was on his last stride (almost beat the throw) when the ball popped out

 

A true throw (inside where F3 was expecting it) and it would have been an out.  The combination of the slightly off-line throw, plus BR being inside shielding F3, plus F3 taking his eye off of it at the last second caused the drop.

[BalkHawk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfPiMu-MFa4

[bam]

That's nuthin all day long. 

[Bumps]

If nothing, then why have the lines or the rule?

[UmpJM]

Bumps,

 

If F2 had stayed where he was initially to throw, and drilled the BR in the back with the throw while he was out of the lane, you would have running lane interference. Similarly, in this play where he did move, had he thrown "to the base" and hit the BR, that would have been RLI as well.

 

JM