Jump to content

pitcher and batter collide on 1st base line

BalkHawk

By BalkHawk
in Collegiate

 Share
Umpire-Empire locks topics which have not been active in the last year. The thread you are viewing hasn't been active in 4157 days so you will not be able to post. We do recommend you starting a new topic to find out what's new in the world of umpiring.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

maven
maven

What the fielder is thinking is immaterial to the call. The fielder has the right to an unmolested opportunity to field the ball, and this runner denied him that right.   Fielders can lose that righ

Dash Riprock
Dash Riprock

It doesn't matter what the fielder is 'trying' to do.  If the batted ball is within a step and a reach of the fielder, he is, by definition, in the act of fielding it.

zm1283
zm1283

The runner's lane protects the fielder taking a throw at first base, not a fielder making a play on a batted ball. The B/R is still responsible for avoiding the fielder while he is making a play, but

Posted Images

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

 

The SEC crew has indicated that it should have been ruled interference...

@johnnyg08

Please cite your source.

 

 

Can't do it fellas.  Take it or leave it.  I can promise that my source is the best source out there.  Makes no difference to me if you believe it or not.  (writing this in the friendliest tone possible)  I wouldn't post it if it was garbage information.  

dumbdumb

dumbdumb

Posted
Posted

 

 

The SEC crew has indicated that it should have been ruled interference...

@johnnyg08

Please cite your source.

 

 

Can't do it fellas.  Take it or leave it.  I can promise that my source is the best source out there.  Makes no difference to me if you believe it or not.  (writing this in the friendliest tone possible)  I wouldn't post it if it was garbage information.  

 

Thanks for your latest insights. It appeared that interference was winning the poll on here, even though it is a good discussion for bringing up both sides of the coin.

 

Now, IYHO, who should have made the call interpretation (interference) that was getting so close to 1B anyway. The PU or the 1BU. At this point had PU jurisdiction passed over to 1BU yet. Was it strictly PU all the way. Was it strictly 1BU all the way. Could it be both all the way, and they should get together and discuss. Believe West and Marsh had this type of situation with a player slapping the glove in a playoff. They got together and West overruled Marsh.

 

Also, since I mentioned the umpiring background for all, could Healey have been using OBR situational experience for this play when he should have been using NCAA situational experience or should it have been "interference" no matter the rule set NCAA/OBR and they, he, just missed it. In other words, he talked Chambers and Tallent out of interference using his knowledge and instincts from MiLB and Chambers and Tallent agreed?

 

Or, in real time they just called what they had, and then upon seeing IR, they have now agreed that the runner deliberately altered the path the interfere and that should take presidence, even though in real time it did not look as if he deviated.

 

Just asking. Let's get the "whose" call should that be in everybody's HO, and can one umpire say, hey that's my call too and get together for a conference rather than totally relinquishing responsibility to the other umpire.

 

Just some other thoughts that came to mind with this play. But hey, I'm dumb dumb.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

That's a good piece for discussion...

 

Whose call is this? 

 

Thinking out loud, I lean toward PU on this at primary responsibility.  BUT I know that many will pre game that 1BU has tag/no tag from the 45' line to the base…so I could see some in that camp too.

 

PU should have the best angle for a runner initiating contact, and seeing the ball within a step and a reach too.

noumpere

noumpere

Posted
Posted

April interps released.  Nothing in there regarding the Florida/Florida state play.

#5 -- Fight Rule *might* apply.

 

But I am a little surprised that there wasn't something in there on this.  Maybe it happened too late to get it fully discussed.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

 

April interps released.  Nothing in there regarding the Florida/Florida state play.

#5 -- Fight Rule *might* apply.

 

But I am a little surprised that there wasn't something in there on this.  Maybe it happened too late to get it fully discussed.

 

 

Good point.  Just nothing about the obs/interference/nothing

MPLSUMP

MPLSUMP

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing it's the fight rule. As I read it, I think that everyone that came out of those dugouts should be EJ and suspended according to the interpretation.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing it's the fight rule. As I read it, I think that everyone that came out of those dugouts should be EJ and suspended according to the interpretation.

The problem with that rule is that there are a few brawls every year and that rule NEVER has been enforced to the letter. The brawls that make the TV are major conference umpires working those games. If they're not running the bench, how are us serfs going to be able to enforce the rule.

I don't disagree w/ the rule, I just don't see it being enforced.

 

Here's the interp...so that's why we're not seeing what some of us think we should be seeing.

 

5-16a, Fight Rule: It is not the individual’s severity of participation in a fight or altercation 
but the fact that the individual(s) did participate in the altercation, which is in violation of 
Rule 5-16. All participants are suspended for a minimum of four games. 
  • Like 1
Dash Riprock

Dash Riprock

Posted
Posted

I'm guessing it's the fight rule. As I read it, I think that everyone that came out of those dugouts should be EJ and suspended according to the interpretation.

You need to do leave the dugout and participate in the fight to earn the auto EJ + 4-game suspension.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

Dash, that's how I read his interpretation too.  Here is the interpretation.  Which supports why we haven't seen the mass EJ's.

 

5-16a, Fight Rule: It is not the individual’s severity of participation in a fight or altercation 
but the fact that the individual(s) did participate in the altercation, which is in violation of 
Rule 5-16. All participants are suspended for a minimum of four games. 
MPLSUMP

MPLSUMP

Posted
Posted

How do we define "participate"? At our college clinic this past February, I was under the impression that the NCAA wanted to address the players leaving the dugout area.

MPLSUMP

MPLSUMP

Posted
Posted

I'm not looking to be a smart ass on this. I'm just looking for the best way to handle this situation.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

How do we define "participate"? At our college clinic this past February, I was under the impression that the NCAA wanted to address the players leaving the dugout area.

 

 

I think this interpretation clears things up.  I don't think we go looking for trouble or see how many players we can dump.  I think we go for the obvious and I think we can also check replay to see if we missed any.  (I know in many of my games, I won't have access to any replay.)  

MPLSUMP

MPLSUMP

Posted
Posted

5. 5-16a, Fight Rule: It is not the individual’s severity of participation in a fight or altercation but the fact that the individual(s) did participate in the altercation, which is in violation of Rule 5-16. All participants are suspended for a minimum of four games.

When I read this, I still see anybody leaving the dugout area. I hate it when the interpretations need interpreting. Haha.

johnnyg08

johnnyg08

Posted
Posted

I see what you're saying and I think that's why Paronto issued an interpretation to clarify that simply leaving the bench is not grounds for EJ by itself.  

 

I'm going to use that assessment as that's what they did in Florida and it seems supported until I hear differently. 

Jimurray

Jimurray

Posted
Posted

MPLSUMP,

 

Perhaps "How do we define 'fight'?" is a better question to ask.

 

JM

I think there were more than 3 players who violated therulr in the OP. Immediate viewing of video might have helped.

c. Team Personnel Leaving Position—Team personnel leaving their position to participate in a physical confrontation (e.g., pushing, shoving, bumping) or a fight (see 5-16-a) shall include players, coaches, athletic trainers and managers.

zm1283

zm1283

Posted
Posted

FYI, the new video bulletin on the NCAA Arbiter addresses this situation. I'll let you guys watch it for yourselves. 

  • Like 1
Thunderheads

Thunderheads

Posted
Posted

FYI, the new video bulletin on the NCAA Arbiter addresses this situation. I'll let you guys watch it for yourselves. 

not all of us can see that ...is there a way to make it visible?

 

thanks

bam

bam

Posted
Posted
Thunderheads, on 02 Apr 2014 - 2:08 PM, said:

 

zm1283, on 02 Apr 2014 - 2:02 PM, said:

FYI, the new video bulletin on the NCAA Arbiter addresses this situation. I'll let you guys watch it for yourselves. 

not all of us can see that ...is there a way to make it visible?

 

thanks

 

Or at least sum it up for us? 

bam

bam

Posted
Posted

It looks like UmpJM over-rotated on this and posted the video to the wrong thread. 

 

That's OK, it's still early in the season. 

  • Like 2
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...