NCAA "You Make the Call"

[johnnyg08]

It's an intentional act inconsistent with base running.  There's no other reason to do that other than to interfere...perhaps even visually.  The problem with not grabbing interference here is where do you draw the line?  What if the pivot man throws the ball away?  Now are you going to grab it?  Maybe...the problem with that is nobody will call it there either.

I like the interpretation...it's yet another thing that the NCAA has done to clean up the game. 

It also further supports the fact that you don't need contact to interfere.  

[maven]

NCAA wants to eliminate crap that leads to escalation. "Zero tolerance" comes to college baseball.

[johnnyg08]

I have no problem with that.  It's the one rule set that tries to legitimately clean up the game and for the most part supports the umpires who properly enforce the rules.

[Jimurray]

It's an intentional act inconsistent with base running.  There's no other reason to do that other than to interfere...perhaps even visually.  The problem with not grabbing interference here is where do you draw the line?  What if the pivot man throws the ball away?  Now are you going to grab it?  Maybe...the problem with that is nobody will call it there either.

I like the interpretation...it's yet another thing that the NCAA has done to clean up the game. 

It also further supports the fact that you don't need contact to interfere.  

Where do you draw the line? RLI is an intentional act inconsistent with baserunning. Call it before the throw is caught because the fielder is standing with his arm out saying "inside". 

[basejester]

To be consistent with this interpretation, is attempted obstruction also obstruction?

 

[Rich Ives]

Is an attempted tag a tag? 

[ricka56]

Is an attempted strike a strike ?
Is an attempted homerun a homerun ? 

[Replacematt]

Is an attempted homerun a homerun ? 

Only with Richie Garcia in right field.

[johnnyg08]

To be consistent with this interpretation, is attempted obstruction also obstruction?

 

We can't look at it that way...although the humor is good!  :-)  Comparing two different things in an attempt to make a point is fallacy 101.  

[basejester]

We can't look at it that way...although the humor is good!  :-)  Comparing two different things in an attempt to make a point is fallacy 101.  

You're right; I'm not asking a literal question there.  However, I'm trying point out the inconsistency.  The rules should have some sense of design,  some fundamental principles that can be applied to different situations.  Every special rule costs confusion and conflict.  So we should be sure that we are buying something important with each special rule. 

When do these penalties apply?

• Interference with a thrown ball:  Intent in itself sufficient for applying the penalty
• Throwing a glove at a batted ball:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Obstruction:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Interference with a batted ball:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Catcher's interference:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Runner's lane interference:  Mere intent not sufficient (maybe it is in Fed)

 

 

[johnnyg08]

You're right; I'm not asking a literal question there.  However, I'm trying point out the inconsistency.  The rules should have some sense of design,  some fundamental principles that can be applied to different situations.  Every special rule costs confusion and conflict.  So we should be sure that we are buying something important with each special rule. 

When do these penalties apply?

• Interference with a thrown ball:  Intent in itself sufficient for applying the penalty
• Throwing a glove at a batted ball:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Obstruction:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Interference with a batted ball:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Catcher's interference:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Runner's lane interference:  Mere intent not sufficient (maybe it is in Fed)

 

 

All good points for discussion.  

[JaxRolo]

I like the INT call on this. I love to penalize player that want to cheat!

[Richvee]

Only with Richie Garcia in right field.

Aren't we over this yet?...Let it go, Matt.

[BT_Blue]

My worry, is that for those of us that work lower level college, where we use 2 man still. It is tough enough to get FSPR as it is. Now, you also need to get this.

I believe that the INT is for throwing his hands up late. Not that he has his hands up at all. I really wish that we can get an explaination of this. Rather than just having to go with the book rule.

[johnnyg08]

My worry, is that for those of us that work lower level college, where we use 2 man still. It is tough enough to get FSPR as it is. Now, you also need to get this.

I believe that the INT is for throwing his hands up late. Not that he has his hands up at all. I really wish that we can get an explaination of this. Rather than just having to go with the book rule.

Isn't the video explanation enough?  What other information are you seeking?

[Jimurray]

My worry, is that for those of us that work lower level college, where we use 2 man still. It is tough enough to get FSPR as it is. Now, you also need to get this.

I believe that the INT is for throwing his hands up late. Not that he has his hands up at all. I really wish that we can get an explaination of this. Rather than just having to go with the book rule.

Isn't the video explanation enough?  What other information are you seeking?

This isn't a FPSR violation as per their cites. @Basejester has indicated some of the information that we would want to know based on viewing the video.

[Rich Ives]

Is an attempted strike a strike ?
Is an attempted homerun a homerun ? 

This one is definitely answered in the book.

[Rich Ives]

Isn't the video explanation enough?  What other information are you seeking?

There was no interference - why then call it?

[Rich Ives]

You're right; I'm not asking a literal question there.  However, I'm trying point out the inconsistency.  The rules should have some sense of design,  some fundamental principles that can be applied to different situations.  Every special rule costs confusion and conflict.  So we should be sure that we are buying something important with each special rule. 

When do these penalties apply?

• Interference with a thrown ball:  Intent in itself sufficient for applying the penalty
• Throwing a glove at a batted ball:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Obstruction:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Interference with a batted ball:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Catcher's interference:  Mere intent not sufficient
• Runner's lane interference:  Mere intent not sufficient (maybe it is in Fed)

 

 

Not if you don't actually touch the ball.  Waving at it doesn't alter its course.

[ricka56]

This one is definitely answered in the book.

Thanks Sherlock ... I would have never thought to look there. 
 

[basejester]

This one is definitely answered in the book.

Not if you don't actually touch the ball.  Waving at it doesn't alter its course.

The assertion that this play should be penalized as interference is in the NCAA's video.  The posts you are responding to are arguing that attempted X is not generally considered X.  Reductio ad absurdum . 

[maven]

Some of you are making this harder than it is.

NCAA wants the actions in this play penalized as "intentional INT." This ruling does not scale to other infractions, nor does it have implications for anything else in the rule book. NCAA is not changing the face of baseball with this ruling.

This ruling applies in NCAA games played under NCAA rules. If you don't work those games, you don't need to worry about it. If you do work those games, then you don't need to worry about why NCAA wants this (although I think it's quite obvious); you just have to call it that way.

Of course, this is the off-season, and some folks have nothing to do besides making simple matters complicated. If that's your hobby, then by all means, carry on.

[Richvee]

Would love to know if FED would want this called the same way.

[Jimurray]

Would love to know if FED would want this called the same way.

Why not, it appears they want RLI without any interference although maybe both NCAA and FED consider the hindrance as hindrance even though the defense overcomes it.

[Richvee]

Why not, it appears they want RLI without any interference although maybe both NCAA and FED consider the hindrance as hindrance even though the defense overcomes it.

I plan on bringing these things up at our state interpretation meeting this winter. I can see the logic on the hands up as an attempt to interfere and they want that called INT, but I've got a problem calling a BR out for running on the outside of the running lane (be it left or right) and the throw is on the opposite side of the lane. To me, that's akin to calling FPSR on R1 when he slides away from the base, but to the opposite side of the middle infielder.