johnnyg08 Posted February 18, 2024 Report Posted February 18, 2024 This is a pretty cool play. Gotta know your terminology! 1 Quote
Jimurray Posted February 18, 2024 Report Posted February 18, 2024 2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: This is a pretty cool play. Gotta know your terminology! There should have been a safe on the initial tangle. I think it’s INT on the second tangle 4 Quote
Richvee Posted February 18, 2024 Report Posted February 18, 2024 1 hour ago, Jimurray said: There should have been a safe on the initial tangle. I think it’s INT on the second tangle I agree. BR avoids interfering with F2’ s fielding, but consequently interferes with the catcher’s an ability to make the throw. I don’t think this is intentional, so my question is, when does the fielder’s fielding end and throw begin? Here, I would argue the BR interferes prior to a throw. So , interference. I guess it could also be argued the BR unintentionally interfered with the throw so it’s nothing. I’m guessing that’s what this crew decided. Quote
Jimurray Posted February 18, 2024 Report Posted February 18, 2024 46 minutes ago, Richvee said: I agree. BR avoids interfering with F2’ s fielding, but consequently interferes with the catcher’s an ability to make the throw. I don’t think this is intentional, so my question is, when does the fielder’s fielding end and throw begin? Here, I would argue the BR interferes prior to a throw. So , interference. I guess it could also be argued the BR unintentionally interfered with the throw so it’s nothing. I’m guessing that’s what this crew decided. I think there’s some OBR wording that protects the fielder in the immediate act of throwing after fielding a batted ball Quote
Senor Azul Posted February 18, 2024 Report Posted February 18, 2024 The best definition of the phrase "act of fielding" can be found in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104): A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:...he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through) I posted the entire definition in the Ask the Umpire forum in a thread called Obstruction and interference - define "attempt" dated 5/20/22 currently on page 21 Quote
Richvee Posted February 19, 2024 Report Posted February 19, 2024 3 hours ago, Senor Azul said: The best definition of the phrase "act of fielding" can be found in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104): A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:...he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through) I posted the entire definition in the Ask the Umpire forum in a thread called Obstruction and interference - define "attempt" dated 5/20/22 currently on page 21 Also in the ‘18 MiLBUM 1 Quote
Richvee Posted February 19, 2024 Report Posted February 19, 2024 I’m hoping NCAA uses this in a weekly video with an interp. Until then I like the idea that “in the act of fielding “ hasn’t ended until the ball is released unhindered. 2 Quote
The Man in Blue Posted February 19, 2024 Report Posted February 19, 2024 7 hours ago, Jimurray said: There should have been a safe on the initial tangle. I think it’s INT on the second tangle I'm with @Jimurray. The batter stops and allows the catcher to pass, which, IMO, gives him opportunity to decide if he is going in front or behind. He chose to go in front. An opportunity to decide = intent. 4 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 13 hours ago, Richvee said: I’m hoping NCAA uses this in a weekly video with an interp. Until then I like the idea that “in the act of fielding “ hasn’t ended until the ball is released unhindered. Yes...here's an even older interp from the PBUC....yes...this is from the PBUC manual 🙂 For the youngsters out there...that's old Minor League Umpire program. 1 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 18 hours ago, Senor Azul said: The best definition of the phrase "act of fielding" can be found in the 2017 Jaksa/Roder manual (p. 104): A fielder is trying to field (or in the act of fielding) a ball when:...he is actually throwing the ball, or completing his throwing motion after throwing the ball (following through) I posted the entire definition in the Ask the Umpire forum in a thread called Obstruction and interference - define "attempt" dated 5/20/22 currently on page 21 Another good citation that appropriately protects the defense. Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 Here's the JR interpretation Quote
Richvee Posted February 19, 2024 Report Posted February 19, 2024 Ive seen the argument on social media that this could be tangle/untangle. I don’t buy it, but I guess you could interpret it as such. My opinion, the tangle/ untangle ship sailed after the batter stutter steps and allows F2 access to the ball. 5 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 1 minute ago, Richvee said: Ive seen the argument on social media that this could be tangle/untangle. I don’t buy it, but I guess you could interpret it as such. My opinion, the tangle/ untangle ship sailed after the batter stutter steps and allows F2 access to the ball. Agree. This is 100% not tangle/untangle. Fisk/Armbrister also involves a batted ball....and it's not immediately in front of home plate. The timing of the play also disqualifies it from tangle/untangle. 1 Quote
The Man in Blue Posted February 19, 2024 Report Posted February 19, 2024 I like all the citations that are descriptive of actually making a play (i.e., including the throw) rather than limiting to just the process of picking up the ball. That is practical and realistic. Now, we need to get the contradictory language cleaned up in the rule books . . . 1 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 Just now, The Man in Blue said: I like all the citations that are descriptive of actually making a play (i.e., including the throw) rather than limiting to just the process of picking up the ball. That is practical and realistic. Now, we need to get the contradictory language cleaned up in the rule books . . . I probably should've consolidated, but I found them at different times...so they'll stay separate! 🙂 I agree that a play should involve the completion of the throw as is the case in OBR. 1 Quote
The Man in Blue Posted February 19, 2024 Report Posted February 19, 2024 Oh no, I wasn't criticizing the multiple posts . . . I like real time findings! They help show a person's thought process! 😁 1 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 20 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said: Oh no, I wasn't criticizing the multiple posts . . . I like real time findings! They help show a person's thought process! 😁 I didn't take it that way. It's all good! 🙂 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 19, 2024 Author Report Posted February 19, 2024 Here's another thing I just thought of...the hinderance occurred before the ball was a thrown ball. Is it "thrown ball" interference if the player is "in the act of throwing" Or is the player still "in the act of fielding"? Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 20, 2024 Author Report Posted February 20, 2024 Here's a nice example of tangle/untangle from the 2015 CWS...you can see how this play is different from the play being discussed: 1 1 Quote
Jimurray Posted February 20, 2024 Report Posted February 20, 2024 6 hours ago, johnnyg08 said: Here's a nice example of tangle/untangle from the 2015 CWS...you can see how this play is different from the play being discussed: Unless there are Interps we don't know about which disappear from Arbiter or now Refquest the college rule always requires intent for contact while OBR does not require intent for INT with a fielder in the act of fielding including the throw: 7-11-f-Exc: "4) If a batter-runner and a catcher fielding a batted ball make contact, no call shall be made unless either player intentionally interferes with the play." Not a relevant exception to 7-11-f but that's where it is and it does not limit tangle-untangle to getting out of the box. Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 20, 2024 Author Report Posted February 20, 2024 6 hours ago, Jimurray said: Unless there are Interps we don't know about which disappear from Arbiter or now Refquest the college rule always requires intent for contact while OBR does not require intent for INT with a fielder in the act of fielding including the throw: 7-11-f-Exc: "4) If a batter-runner and a catcher fielding a batted ball make contact, no call shall be made unless either player intentionally interferes with the play." Not a relevant exception to 7-11-f but that's where it is and it does not limit tangle-untangle to getting out of the box. Yeah, that's been the debate...lots of contradiction. Namely batter interference requires no intent, only hinderance...but this requires intent. I think the judgement supports that the batter/runner stopping and starting in front of the F2 could be judged to be intentional. I don't think this even makes the internet if they go w/ interference on this play. Question...if they would've gone Interference here, are they required to get two? Or can they get the garden variety INT and return R1? Been looking far & wide for older interps and they're hard to find...thinking maybe a preseason guide somewhere, maybe under Paronto? Quote
MadMax Posted February 20, 2024 Report Posted February 20, 2024 18 hours ago, The Man in Blue said: Now, we need to get the contradictory language cleaned up in the rule books Therein lies the challenge. Unlike OBR or NFHS, with their manuals (plural) and casebooks (plural), NCAA leaves little to “supplemental interpretation”. A long-standing D1 umpire stated – “If you want to see a rule change, enforce it as written.” This lends to the source of (most) of the Rules, a conclave of/for the coaches themselves. As I (re)watch the clip, I can’t help but remark, “Yup, he (PU) is interpreting/ applying the rule as written.” And, it is extremely tough to retract a “that’s nothing” safe mechanic, from the immediately adjacent PU, especially when it’s repeated 2-3 times. 3 Quote
johnnyg08 Posted February 20, 2024 Author Report Posted February 20, 2024 2 hours ago, MadMax said: Therein lies the challenge. Unlike OBR or NFHS, with their manuals (plural) and casebooks (plural), NCAA leaves little to “supplemental interpretation”. A long-standing D1 umpire stated – “If you want to see a rule change, enforce it as written.” This lends to the source of (most) of the Rules, a conclave of/for the coaches themselves. As I (re)watch the clip, I can’t help but remark, “Yup, he (PU) is interpreting/ applying the rule as written.” And, it is extremely tough to retract a “that’s nothing” safe mechanic, from the immediately adjacent PU, especially when it’s repeated 2-3 times. At the end of all of this, I expect NCAA to open with 7-11f Exc 4... But history has also shown that an interpretation at the beginning of the season is not necessarily the same interpretation at the middle or end of the season. 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.