NCAA "You Make the Call"

[zm1283]

Anyone who is on the NCAA Arbiter site: Try to go watch the first "You Make the Call" they posted today and post what you think. It is a possible interference play at 2nd base. 

[Replacematt]

I've got nothing. He may have been trying to interfere, but I don't think there was any interference.

[stkjock]

Even if you're not a member you can see it.

http://www.brainshark.com/arbitersports/vu?pi=zHLz7SBdizKdjLz0

 

[maven]

Sounds as if NCAA wants to punish intent, independent of any actual hindrance. Bush league is now illegal, not just bush.

[JDavis225]

I've got INT. Although he made the double play, the interference can't be nullified or ignored because another runner advanced. 

[zm1283]

I wanted to post that to get opinions first to see if I was the only one thinking the way that Matt is. 

I gather they aren't saying it is FPSR interference, so absent that, what exactly does R1 interfere with here? The fielder is coming across the base toward the relay throw already, so the runner isn't forcing him to alter his play at all. I don't see what exactly he is interfering with. Be prepared to have an ejection or two here, especially if it takes a run off the board if there were a runner on third. 

 

[Rich Ives]

Nothing.

 

[smckin]

Nothing Notta ZIP

[grayhawk]

Sounds like a similar scenario to when we discussed R2 stopping and intentionally trying to get in F6's way when fielding a grounder.  Many felt that the intentional act itself was enough to call interference, even if the runner didn't actually hinder the fielder in any way.  Same thing here, according to the NCAA.

[stkjock]

I recalled there was a thread this year on this topic.  I guess the rule code being used is a big determinant 

 

Edited November 24, 2015 by stkjock

[BT_Blue]

I got it wrong. Thought I might be able to take it more than once. I said it was nothing for the reasons listed above.

 

Looking forward to the meeting to get the explaination of why.

[Rich Ives]

They're nuts. No one over 14 is going to be bothered by that.

[andydufresne]

Sounds like a similar scenario to when we discussed R2 stopping and intentionally trying to get in F6's way when fielding a grounder.  Many felt that the intentional act itself was enough to call interference, even if the runner didn't actually hinder the fielder in any way.  Same thing here, according to the NCAA.

Yeah, but those guys on the committee are full of solutions in search of a problem.

This play ought to be treated like running out of the lane on the way to first base: you can do it if you want to, but you leave yourself open to an interference call. First rule of interference is (or at least ought to be) that the player has to interfere.

It's like that tunnel my buddy dug. The screws put him in the hole for 90 days for attempted escape, even though every time he entered that tunnel, he always came back.

[Forest Ump]

The runner intentionally tried to interfere. He raised his arms in an attempt to prevent the fielder from turning the double play. Regardless of the outcome, there was clear intention on the runners part. That's  the reason for the penalty.

8-5d.    The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes
with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play
is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is
attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared
out;

 

[Jimurray]

The runner intentionally tried to interfere. He raised his arms in an attempt to prevent the fielder from turning the double play. Regardless of the outcome, there was clear intention on the runners part. That's  the reason for the penalty.

8-5d.    The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes
with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play
is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is
attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared
out;

 

So without reference to the book or books, interference requires hindrance whether achieved or not? Seems we have a slipperly slope. Batter tries to interfere, but fails, the BU calls the out and that's nothing OR we call INT and even though the catchers throw retired the runner, we have the batter out and runner returns? I'm confused as always?

[basejester]

We had a similar discussion for OBR.

[Replacematt]

The runner intentionally tried to interfere. He raised his arms in an attempt to prevent the fielder from turning the double play. Regardless of the outcome, there was clear intention on the runners part. That's  the reason for the penalty.

8-5d.    The runner interferes intentionally with a throw or thrown ball, or interferes
with a fielder who is attempting to field a batted ball. If a double play
is likely, and the runner intentionally interferes with the fielder who is
attempting to field the ball, both runner and batter-runner shall be declared
out;

 

Here's the problem. This rule says "interferes." It doesn't say "attempts to interfere."

[BT_Blue]

Hopefully we get an explaination as to why this is interference. We were pretty much 50-50 on the BI clip from the beginning of the year with Pablo Sandoval. I see this as the same thing.

[johnnyg08]

I'm glad somebody posted this.  This interpretation settles the Intentional Interference we've been debating on here for a couple of years.

[johnnyg08]

I actually like the interpretation.  There no other reason he's sliding that way...it's not consistent with running or sliding.  

Grab it.  

[Jimurray]

I actually like the interpretation.  There no other reason he's sliding that way...it's not consistent with running or sliding.  

Grab it.  

Do you like FED grabbing RLI even though the throw retires the runner?

[johnnyg08]

Do you like FED grabbing RLI even though the throw retires the runner?

Is that the FED interp?  

[Jimurray]

Is that the FED interp?  

I would hope not but I'm not sure after watching their video: http://umpire-empire.com/index.php?/topic/63923-rli-called-when-br-is-thrown-out/

 

[Rich Ives]

I actually like the interpretation.  There no other reason he's sliding that way...it's not consistent with running or sliding.  

Grab it.  

It didn't interfere. Infielder didn't so much as bat an eye. NCAA seems to think they're still in 10U ball.

[BT_Blue]

Yeh. Im not a fan of the interpretation. We have our local meeting right after the new year. Luckily, our assignor is Tom Hiler. So hopefully I can get the reasoning right from him. Will post it if I get it.