Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
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. 

Posted
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

Posted

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

Posted
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

3B3165DA-F3BC-4A2B-9A5D-461E884BCD58.jpeg.3d34556d1dd07a46a31d640544c88726.jpeg

  • Like 1
Posted

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. 

  • Like 2
Posted
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.

  • Like 4
Posted
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. 

 

Throw.png

  • Like 1
Posted
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. 

Posted

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.  

  • Like 5
Posted
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. 

  • Like 1
Posted

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 . . . 

  • Like 1
Posted
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. 

  • Like 1
Posted
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! 🙂 

Posted

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"? 

 

Posted
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.

Posted
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? 

Posted
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. 

  • Like 3
Posted
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. 

  • Like 1

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...