interference or no interference? (Video)

[Fittske24]

You make the call... and based on your ruling what do you tell the coach? Ready, set.... Go!

[bam]

Didn't we just have this discussion?

 

First of all I'd have to know what the coach is arguing.  If he's arguing INT on the retired runner, I'm going to ask him who or what he interfered with.  The fielder?  He made the play.  The ball?  He never touched it. 

 

Remember, this is a thrown ball.  INT on a thrown ball (except in the land of @ricka56) has to be intentional. 

 

So until there's a penalty for "attempted but failed interference", I've got nothing. 

[BalkHawk]

"That's nothing."

"There wouldn't have been a play, skip."

[BalkHawk]

I wonder what u1 was mouthing in the moment of the 'alleged' INT?

[maven]

I agree, no hindrance = no INT.

 

Edited to add (in light of @noumpere's remark below, with which I agree): ...despite the retired runner's half-assed effort to interfere.

[noumpere]

There is certainly the potential for INT here -- much like it's OBS for a fielder to line himself up between the runner tagging up and the fielder catching a fly ball.

 

But as it happened, no INT.

[mjr_2013]

Disclaimer - I'm speaking OBR only, I'm not familiar with NCAA. 

 

I think I'm going to get interference on this play... 7.09(e)... While I understand that it doesn't look like a play regardless, I'm watching 0:45-0:55 over and over (so yes, a Monday Morning QB) and I see a double pump by F8 and a ball that arrives at the same time as R1, even though it was on two bounces.

 

IMO, the batter-runner is definitely standing there with the sole intent of interfering, whether he actually accomplished that or not is the question. If we removed the batter-runner from the situation completely, or just put him where he would be if he behaved normally, peeling off to one side, does the F8 come up gunning with a strike to F3 to nail the R1 on a bang-bang play? Maybe, maybe not. I give him maybe a 10-20% chance at the college level. ALL benefit of the doubt has to lie with the defense in this scenario though.

 

Thoughts?

[bam]

thoughts?

 

I THINK you're over thinking.  Where was the interference?  Who or what was interfered with?  So if I intend to interfere with a fielder's attempt to catch my popup by waving my hands wildly, but he catches it anyway, I'm still guilty of interference?   

[Thunderheads]

Ken .....thats a great no call sir!!!

Jeff - via Tapatalk

[maven]

I think I'm going to get interference on this play... 7.09(e)... While I understand that it doesn't look like a play regardless, I'm watching 0:45-0:55 over and over (so yes, a Monday Morning QB) and I see a double pump by F8 and a ball that arrives at the same time as R1, even though it was on two bounces.

 

Don't do it! There's no hindrance here, and although the ball might have arrived on time, F3 is 6 feet off the base when he fields it.

 

There's no hindrance on this play. Leave that poopy stick where it is.

 

[mjr_2013]

 

thoughts?

 

I THINK you're over thinking.  Where was the interference?  Who or what was interfered with?  So if I intend to interfere with a fielder's attempt to catch my popup by waving my hands wildly, but he catches it anyway, I'm still guilty of interference?   

 

 

It could be argued the F8 was interfered with. The batter-runner was there as the throw was being made and the F8 double pumped and then threw off line, at least possibly because there was a random opponent conveniently standing in his line of throw.

 

@maven, I admit that I could be overthinking this, because originally I agreed with the consensus here and it took probably 15 views of the ten second frame I mentioned before I changed my mind. If no one agrees by the time I'm home from my game tonight, I'll probably watch it again and concede to the majority.

[bam]

He threw OFF LINE???  I want some of what you're smoking, brother! 

[maven]

Yeah, that's crazy talk, brother.

[grayhawk]

Let me get this straight.  You think F8, who was 200 feet from the retired BR, was interfered by him?

 

I have a failed attempt by the BR to interfere with a play that had no chance of retiring R1.

[maven]

I have a failed attempt by the BR to interfere with a play that had no chance of retiring R1.

The correct mechanic is to point and verbalize, "That's failed interference!"

 

I keed, I keed.

 

[mjr_2013]

Oh fine, party poopers. You're right, I'm wrong.

[Richvee]

 

thoughts?

 

I THINK you're over thinking.  Where was the interference?  Who or what was interfered with?  So if I intend to interfere with a fielder's attempt to catch my popup by waving my hands wildly, but he catches it anyway, I'm still guilty of interference?   

 

While I agree there's no INT here, I'm not buying this analogy. R2, ground ball to short. R2 stands in front of F6, (not running by, just standing) until the ball gets to him, then takes a step out of the way. Ball never touches him. I don't care if F6 makes the play anyway, that's INT.  

[Thunderheads]

Ken .....thats a great no call sir!!!

Jeff - via Tapatalk

Uhhmmmm .....

 

HELLO PEOPLE .....  re-read my post ..... let me say it again:

 

Ken, ...that's a great no-call sir!!

And, I like the Zooms!  Looking good!