Retired Runner INT Clemson-SC

[zoops]

Interesting play, starts at about 9:20: 

 

 

Jomboy also did a segment on it.

[Replacematt]

The best angle is at 10:00 or so.

A retired runner is absolved from interference if and only if they are continuing to advance or retreat. Once they stop doing that, they have an absolute responsibility not to interfere, so they need to know where the ball is, where it's going, and where the defense is. Sometimes there might be limited or zero options for the retired runner not to interfere, and those are the breaks.

R1's only real chance to avoid INT here would have been to pick up that there was an overthrow, find where the ball was coming from, and get out of the way of it and the middle infielders.

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, Replacematt said:

The best angle is at 10:00 or so.

A retired runner is absolved from interference if and only if they are continuing to advance or retreat. Once they stop doing that, they have an absolute responsibility not to interfere, so they need to know where the ball is, where it's going, and where the defense is. Sometimes there might be limited or zero options for the retired runner not to interfere, and those are the breaks.

R1's only real chance to avoid INT here would have been to pick up that there was an overthrow, find where the ball was coming from, and get out of the way of it and the middle infielders.

Was Jomboy's lipread of U2 saying "obstruction" correct? 

[johnnyg08]

Clemson involved in another "fun" play in almost as many weeks. 

[The Man in Blue]

So was there something R1 did that I am not seeing from the camera edit and/or angle?  

My first watch through, I thought it was called on the initial slide, so the challenge was silly.  Subsequent watch, you can see it wasn't called until the play coming back.

It seems he did something after that when the next play was coming in to 2B.  I'm just not seeing what it was from the camera angles/edits.

[johnnyg08]

I'm working on a breakdown right now. This is a cool play...but the OP's video doesn't help us much. 

No fault of @zoops it's the best video we had at the time. 

Good find @zoops!

[jimurrayalterego]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

I'm working on a breakdown right now. This is a cool play...but the OP's video doesn't help us much. 

No fault of @zoops it's the best video we had at the time. 

Good find @zoops!

The OP's video is clear. We have a retired runner who is no longer running the bases normally, not continuing to advance. He then becomes liable for INT whether intentional or not. Once a retired runner stops running the bases he must avoid hindering etc.

"5-Team Offensive Interference SECTION 3� No offensive team members, either in or out of the lineup, shall physically or verbally hinder, confuse or impede any defensive player who is attempting to make a play�

Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance or returns or attempts to return to the runner's last legally occupied base after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Note 2: A runner who has been obstructed remains subject to team offensive interference penalties.

PENALTY—(1) The umpire shall call offensive interference and call out the runner on whom the play was attempted, or would have been attempted. 2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

[johnnyg08]

Just now, jimurrayalterego said:

The OP's video is clear. We have a retired runner who is no longer running the bases normally, not continuing to advance. He then becomes liable for INT whether intentional or not. Once a retired runner stops running the bases he must avoid hindering etc.

"5-Team Offensive Interference SECTION 3� No offensive team members, either in or out of the lineup, shall physically or verbally hinder, confuse or impede any defensive player who is attempting to make a play�

Note 1: If the batter or runner continues to advance or returns or attempts to return to the runner's last legally occupied base after being put out, that act alone shall not be considered as confusing, hindering or impeding the fielders.

Note 2: A runner who has been obstructed remains subject to team offensive interference penalties.

PENALTY—(1) The umpire shall call offensive interference and call out the runner on whom the play was attempted, or would have been attempted. 2) If a runner or batter-runner, who has been put out or obstructed, hinders or impedes any following play being made on a runner, such runner shall be declared out because of a teammate’s interference."

Sure. I don't think there's dispute as to the correctness of the call. It's for sure correct. 

[Velho]

1 hour ago, johnnyg08 said:

Sure. I don't think there's dispute as to the correctness of the call. It's for sure correct. 

Announcer says run scored. Not sure I follow that. Runner hadn't touched plate by the time retired runner actions of interference occurred (though the ball came later).

[johnnyg08]

1 minute ago, Velho said:

Announcer says run scored. Not sure I follow that. Runner hadn't touched plate by the time retired runner actions of interference occurred (though the ball came later).

I agree that it's tight. It did go to review for that purpose. Here's a breakdown: 

 

[Velho]

3 minutes ago, johnnyg08 said:

I agree that it's tight. It did go to review for that purpose.

And upheld it. Seemed cut and dry to me - but whatever.

More interested in knowing that the demarcation point is the moment when F6 is hindered by retired-R1. Do I have that correct? 

[johnnyg08]

13 minutes ago, Velho said:

And upheld it. Seemed cut and dry to me - but whatever.

More interested in knowing that the demarcation point is the moment when F6 is hindered by retired-R1. Do I have that correct? 

I think so. I was always taught the it was from the origin of the tag on a time play...not the mechanic...so under that premise the time play would be from the origin of the interference/hinderance, not the mechanic. Perhaps that was the point of contention? So would that be at the time of the attempt to put out the BR (the actual tag attempt and not the throw) Here's a still of the runner touching home plate and ball isn't "in the glove" of the defense. An argument could be made that at this point, the defense hasn't been hindered. 

 

 

Time of Interference mechanic...runner has clearly scored...and could be the actual time of the interference being the time of the tag attempt being hindered by the retired R1. 

[Velho]

I have this (0:53 of your video) as when the INT occurred. Retired-R1 on the ground getting in the way of the fielder positioning himself to receive the throw.

[BLWizzRanger]

So was there something R1 did that I am not seeing from the camera edit and/or angle?  
My first watch through, I thought it was called on the initial slide, so the challenge was silly.  Subsequent watch, you can see it wasn't called until the play coming back.
It seems he did something after that when the next play was coming in to 2B.  I'm just not seeing what it was from the camera angles/edits.

I thought Jomboy had more pertinent video, the whole situation, and not just a highlight.

Sent from my SM-F721U1 using Tapatalk

[johnnyg08]

3 minutes ago, Velho said:

I have this (0:53 of your video) as when the INT occurred. Retired-R1 on the ground getting in the way of the fielder positioning himself to receive the throw.

That was kind of my thought...but they must have gone off of the tag attempt? 

[Replacematt]

Was there an initial call of the run scoring, or no determination on the field?

The fact that there is a question about the timing is evidence as to why if there was an initial call of the run scoring, it wasn't overturned. The criteria we use in NCAA review for is that there has to be, at a minimum, one camera angle that is 100% conclusive on its own. If we are doing our own review (not centralized replay,) we want to note which angle(s) were conclusive in the event we need to answer that question. If we have centralized replay, we want to note which angles they say are conclusive.

[Velho]

22 minutes ago, Replacematt said:

The criteria we use in NCAA review for is that there has to be, at a minimum, one camera angle that is 100% conclusive on its own. If we are doing our own review (not centralized replay,) we want to note which angle(s) were conclusive in the event we need to answer that question. If we have centralized replay, we want to note which angles they say are conclusive.

Good context. Thanks.

While we don't know what angles were provided to replay review, the above that I showed is conclusive - unless the demarcation point is something other than when the offense hindered the  defense.

[johnnyg08]

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Good context. Thanks.

While we don't know what angles were provided to replay review, the above that I showed is conclusive - unless the demarcation point is something other than when the offense hindered the  defense.

Agree. I think it is conclusive. I think they counted the run and went to review to confirm. 

[Velho]

2 hours ago, johnnyg08 said:

Agree. I think it is conclusive. I think they counted the run and went to review to confirm. 

And came back as the run counts. 

[To be clear since I left ambiguity in my prior statement: conclusive that INT happened before the run scored so the run shouldn't have counted]

[grayhawk]

Retired runner interference is an immediate dead ball. The runner approaching the plate clearly had not scored prior to the interference, so I can't see how the run scores. The tag attempt is not relevant, because the ball was already dead at that point.

[The Man in Blue]

The piece we are missing is what exactly was the interference.  From the video @johnnyg08 posted (thank you!) we see the retired runner stand up and start to walk away.  Then it appears he realizes a play is coming and drops and covers.  When he drops, for whatever reason, he angles back as if he is going towards the base.

Opinion: Even though his body angled back when he dropped, I personally don't see (from these videos) anything I would have called interference.  He doesn't reach for the base or do anything that he fielder ever seems o pay him any mind.  It could just be the failure to clear out, in which case the run would not score, IMO.

So where exactly did the interference occur?  Until we can answer that, we cannot answer whether the run scores or not.

[Replacematt]

3 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

The piece we are missing is what exactly was the interference.  From the video @johnnyg08 posted (thank you!) we see the retired runner stand up and start to walk away.  Then it appears he realizes a play is coming and drops and covers.  When he drops, for whatever reason, he angles back as if he is going towards the base.

Opinion: Even though his body angled back when he dropped, I personally don't see (from these videos) anything I would have called interference.  He doesn't reach for the base or do anything that he fielder ever seems o pay him any mind.  It could just be the failure to clear out, in which case the run would not score, IMO.

So where exactly did the interference occur?  Until we can answer that, we cannot answer whether the run scores or not.

I've seen a closer and different angle (and I can't remember where, or else I'd share it) and F4 got tangled with him briefly while he was on the ground. It's about the time that the previous posters have shared in their screen caps.

[The Man in Blue]

Thank you, I knew there were missing pieces!  Given that, I don't see how the runner scores.  

[BLWizzRanger]

https/x.c

Right around the 1:15 and 3:05 marks.