2015 Super Regional R1 & F4 make contact

[johnnyg08]

 

[GreyhoundAggie]

Interesting play Johnny. It appears that F4 almost jumps into R1 and flops all over the place.

Could you make a case that F4 initiated the contact to draw a call and not get the interference?

 

[Replacematt]

I'd only do that if it was obvious. Even if he did embellish, he still was hindered from making the play on the ball.

If you don't have INT, you're going to have OBS. Which one seems more right here? To me, it's easy.

[GreyhoundAggie]

I don't disagree, just starting a conversation and throwing out a discussion point.

[grayhawk]

F4 TRIED to be hindered here.  He stuck his glove out for the sole purpose of initiating contact with R1.  He threw in the pirouette to sell it further.  If he took a straight path to the ball, without reaching out, there would have been no contact whatsoever.

[StrikeToWin]

Wouldn't that have been a yellow card in soccer or a technical foul in basketball?  When I first saw it, it appears that the F4 intentionally initiated contact and then basically flopped with the added theatrics at the end.  But I can see it in slow motion from several different angles.  Since it didn't appear as though any of the 4 umpires called it initially, I wonder what the discussion was like in their conference.  It appeared to me that U1 was looking right at R1 as he and F4 made contact.  U2 also had eyes on and neither called INT or OBS so which umpire gave evidence that yes it was one or the other.  Not criticizing, just would like to have been a fly on the wall for that discussion.

[BillKen]

I think this is one of those plays that is just 50-50 as it relates to who perceives they got the wrong end of the stick.  There is a case for both INT and OBS...and we get paid to make those judgments.  I personally thought it was INT the first time I saw it at full speed...but 2B is right there.  That had to be one heck of a conference and maybe an even better postgame discussion!  

But I do wonder how can someone be a play-by-play analyst on ESPN (making a lot more money than the umps) and not know that the runner has the responsibility to avoid the fielder making a play on the ball by rule?  Their commentary is comical to me!

[BuckeyeMike]

U1 had the replay angle that showed best what happened......which is nothing IMHO.   A no-call here initially should have been upheld in the conference between them all.  

And I disagree that if you don't have INT you have OBS.     I think this is a big fat NOTHING all the way around. 

[UmpTTS43]

Textbook INT

[Mudder]

I really don't know how you can look at that and say its not INT?  Granted F4 sold it, no question, at 0.47, its a potential double play ball, from the moment the batter made contact F4, in a straight line, charged the ball, didn't slow down, change direction, etc. R1 has to to yield and did not, simple as that. How do you see OBS, with a little tap of F4's glove on R1's arm, had no impact.  Analysts.. a joke as usual

[Richvee]

That's one tough call. I can easily see both sides. First time watching it at full speed, I thought INT right away. Watching it over and over makes me wonder if F4's sole intention was to draw that call. If it was, he sure would have got me. 

 

As for the announcers....There's announcers that don't know the rules, then there's these 2 jackwagons. Not a word they said was correct or relevant. 

[Replacematt]

U1 had the replay angle that showed best what happened......which is nothing IMHO.   A no-call here initially should have been upheld in the conference between them all.  

And I disagree that if you don't have INT you have OBS.     I think this is a big fat NOTHING all the way around. 

​You can't have nothing on contact while the ball is batted. EIther the protected fielder was hindered and it's INT, or the runner was illegally hindered and it's OBS (aside from the one exception someone mentioned last time I said this, which is a tangle in the immediate vicinity of home plate.)

Edited June 6, 2015 by Matt

[BuckeyeMike]

Yes.   Yes you CAN have nothing on contact while the ball is batted, and this is it.   F4 stuck his glove out and tried to get a call, was not hindered due to R1's actions, and everyone looking at it when it went down in real-time had nothing. 

So you're saying that after viewing the replay from the 1B side (or where U1 would be) you would still call this "something" ?    

I politely disagree. 

[Replacematt]

Yes.   Yes you CAN have nothing on contact while the ball is batted, and this is it.   F4 stuck his glove out and tried to get a call, was not hindered due to R1's actions, and everyone looking at it when it went down in real-time had nothing. 

So you're saying that after viewing the replay from the 1B side (or where U1 would be) you would still call this "something" ?    

I politely disagree. 

​Really? So, for the sake of argument, let's say that F4 did try to draw the call. Are you then saying that R1 wasn't impeded? Because he most certainly was.

[ricka56]

I often see charging infielders pull-up when the runner is in front of them. They would easily get an interference if they continued to charge the ball. That is what I think happened here. The infielder charging the ball and is cut off by R1. Maybe F4 embellished, but that's still interference.

[BuckeyeMike]

I guess we're never going to agree on this, because in no way, shape, or form do I see R1 being impeded in the least on that play.  

The two players *brushed* at best.   As I see it, R1 didn't get knocked off his path or hindered at all. 

[Replacematt]

I guess we're never going to agree on this, because in no way, shape, or form do I see R1 being impeded in the least on that play.  

The two players *brushed* at best.   As I see it, R1 didn't get knocked off his path or hindered at all. 

And that's why it's INT, because F4 was hindered.

[Replacematt]

F4 TRIED to be hindered here.  He stuck his glove out for the sole purpose of initiating contact with R1.  He threw in the pirouette to sell it further.  If he took a straight path to the ball, without reaching out, there would have been no contact whatsoever.

​Have you ever played middle infield? You don't take a straight path to the ball on these types of hits. You take a path that allows you to have your feet in a direction to throw to the base you're going as you field the ball, preferably on your glove side.

Given that the ball went underneath his legs, I'm pretty sure that he wasn't moving away from it.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Matt

[BuckeyeMike]

I'm a little concerned that you're treating this as a black and white issue, as stated in post #3 above:

If you don't have INT, you're going to have OBS.

I don't see OBS for sure.   The INT is what we're discussing (aside from your hypothetical) below.

​Really? So, for the sake of argument, let's say that F4 did try to draw the call. Are you then saying that R1 wasn't impeded? Because he most certainly was.

​I cede.   We're just not seeing this the same and have a fundamental difference in rule interpretations and opinions. 

[Replacematt]

That's because it actually is black and white. You have one or the other when both players are hindered. I have both players being hindered here (relative degree does not matter, because one has the right to be where he is and the other does not.) If F4 has the right to be where he is, then it's INT. If R1 does, then its OBS, even though F4 was "more" hindered.

[ricka56]

It is not nothing...it is something...it is either interference or obstruction.

[BuckeyeMike]

I know I said I ceded, and I do, but I see the glaring difference.   You have both players being hindered and I do not have either being hindered.

I agree with all of what you said besides that.

 

Can we get an NCAA official interp on this play @‌Johnnyg08 or anyone else?  

[BillKen]

Players are coached their whole lives to try and break up DP balls as they are running to 2nd and even 1st on RLI type plays.  They look for disruptive opportunities.  We on the other hand look through the lens of fairness...does this meet the definition...does intent matter...etc.  Only in the bigs do they get another look at it...all other levels have limited to 0 opportunity for a second chance.  So I think you have to base your argument on this play based on one look, at full speed...and the crew conference gives you the luxury of at least 3 different angles.  I am not sure why U2 didn't rule INT immediately...but U1 and U3 had to be the ones that gave him the input to change his call.  I agree with y'all that the U1 replay angle shows to be suspect...but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that he was sticking his glove out to both prepare to make a play on the ball and maybe to protect himself for what he felt was imminent contact.  Who knows for sure.  

But the bottom line is that the runner, the ball, and the defender are all in very close proximity and the runner has the onus to yield.  If you are going to give anyone the benefit of the doubt here, it has to be F4.  I'm guessing the crew's discussion was centered around what each guy saw, what was most likely supportable by their supervisor, and how they were going to handle either managers objections.  I think INT is the most defendable call here...especially through the lens of only getting one look at real time speed.

[grayhawk]

​Have you ever played middle infield? You don't take a straight path to the ball on these types of hits. You take a path that allows you to have your feet in a direction to throw to the base you're going as you field the ball, preferably on your glove side.

Given that the ball went underneath his legs, I'm pretty sure that he wasn't moving away from it.

Let me clarify. F4 could have continued on his desired path and fielded the ball unhindered if he hadn't reached out with his glove for the sole purpose of drawing the interference call.  Also, I don't have obstruction because R1 was not hindered at all. 

[maven]

Can't be nothing: it's a batted ball, with contact.

The ruling depends on hindrance: if F4 were running at the runner rather than the ball (and they weren't lined up, as they are here), and that were 100% obvious, you could get away with OBS in this situation. If he's obviously not playing the ball AT ALL, then he can't be hindered (or protected). Ruling OBS would have no impact on the outcome, since you'd protect R1 at most to 3B, which is where he ended up.

But F4 is close ENOUGH to the ball, making ENOUGH of an attempt to field, to earn at least the benefit of the doubt (to which he is entitled as the protected fielder). If you had to replay the video to look for a reason not to call runner INT on a batted ball, then call it. I agree with Matt's reasoning: since it has to be one or the other, INT is the better call here.

Hindrance of a protected fielder = INT, with or without contact.

This is an awesome discussion play, and you can bet the farm that it will be on next year's NCAA videos.