Outs. Grab the outs. DP INT

[Velho]

Doesn’t appear they got two outs on this play (and I checked the box score)

 

[jimurrayalterego]

3 hours ago, Velho said:

Doesn’t appear they got two outs on this play (and I checked the box score)

 

The "legend" would imply this guy knows what he's doing. The play would imply that the umps do/did not know what he's been doing or thought it was because of stupidity and did not have the intel, assuming the announcers have seen this guy become a legend due to bending the baserunning rules.

[SeeingEyeDog]

Missed ejection here? "Mockery of the game..." or have I been working out in the heat too much today?

~Dawg

[jimurrayalterego]

56 minutes ago, SeeingEyeDog said:

Missed ejection here? "Mockery of the game..." or have I been working out in the heat too much today?

~Dawg

Just apply the rule which is designed to penalize this and any other deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.

[maven]

UEFL picked this one up.

 

[BigBlue4u]

On 7/5/2025 at 6:22 PM, jimurrayalterego said:

Just apply the rule which is designed to penalize this and any other deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.

I don't think a baserunner fielding a batted ball comes under the definition of a deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.  I believe one could call a double play and eject the runner who fielded the ball.  The ejection is harsh, but the message here is:  Don't be doing stupid things like this on a baseball field.

[zoops]

10 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I don't think a baserunner fielding a batted ball comes under the definition of a deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.  I believe one could call a double play and eject the runner who fielded the ball.  The ejection is harsh, but the message here is:  Don't be doing stupid things like this on a baseball field.

A runner stopping and literally fielding a ground ball has to be considered intentional or deliberate interference, I can't see how it wouldn't be. 

[JSam21]

14 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I don't think a baserunner fielding a batted ball comes under the definition of a deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.  I believe one could call a double play and eject the runner who fielded the ball.  The ejection is harsh, but the message here is:  Don't be doing stupid things like this on a baseball field.

An ejection would be well beyond the scope and would likely get you more guff from your coordinator than just kicking the willful and deliberate interference. 

 

[noumpere]

14 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I don't think a baserunner fielding a batted ball comes under the definition of a deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.  I believe one could call a double play and eject the runner who fielded the ball.  The ejection is harsh, but the message here is:  Don't be doing stupid things like this on a baseball field.

FIFY

[beerguy55]

21 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I don't think a baserunner fielding a batted ball comes under the definition of a deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.

If this isn't a deliberate attempt to break up a DP then nothing is.

[BigBlue4u]

1 hour ago, beerguy55 said:

23 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

I don't think a baserunner fielding a batted ball comes under the definition of a deliberate attempt to break up a DP illegally.

If this isn't a deliberate attempt to break up a DP then nothing is.

My bad for not being more clear.  Of course it is a deliberate attempt to break up a double play.  However, the ejection would be for making a mockery of the game.

[JSam21]

17 hours ago, BigBlue4u said:

My bad for not being more clear.  Of course it is a deliberate attempt to break up a double play.  However, the ejection would be for making a mockery of the game.

Respectfully, 

There is absolutely nothing worthy of an ejection here. If you do eject this base runner for the actions displayed in this video, you will probably have a lot of free time coming up very quickly at the college level. 

[zoops]

Was reading some comments on this play on the UEFL page and some are saying that the NCAA rule only mentions intentional interference with a fielder (not the ball) and so this play should only be one out.  I guess my mind goes to the fact that if you intentionally don't allow the ball to get to the fielder, you are interfering with the fielder.  Will be interesting if the NCAA puts out a memo on this one since it's likely to become a strategic play if the one out ruling is correct.  

[The Man in Blue]

On 7/9/2025 at 2:33 PM, zoops said:

Was reading some comments on this play on the UEFL page and some are saying that the NCAA rule only mentions intentional interference with a fielder (not the ball) and so this play should only be one out.  I guess my mind goes to the fact that if you intentionally don't allow the ball to get to the fielder, you are interfering with the fielder.  Will be interesting if the NCAA puts out a memo on this one since it's likely to become a strategic play if the one out ruling is correct.  

This is a place where we need to stop parsing letters and look at the intent of the rule. Agree with you 100%.  Interfering quicker should not make it an less of an offense.

[zoops]

5 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

This is a place where we need to stop parsing letters and look at the intent of the rule. Agree with you 100%.  Interfering quicker should not make it an less of an offense.

Yeah, I can't imagine Randy Bruns would say only the runner should be out here.

[flyingron]

On 7/9/2025 at 3:33 PM, zoops said:

Was reading some comments on this play on the UEFL page and some are saying that the NCAA rule only mentions intentional interference with a fielder (not the ball) and so this play should only be one out.  

This ain't hockey.   You can't deflect the ball away from a fielder.  That's interfering with his ability to field it.

[The Man in Blue]

Unofficially officially … an anonymous source identified in court documents as “Wide Ball Bags” has confirmed no interp is needed and we can stop digging through obscure forms of punctuation to try to parse wording to understand the on the field call.  Occam’s Razor applies: the call was simply missed.

It could be the casual nature of the offender on the field, or the completely “WTF just happened” trauma the umpires and defense just experienced … they simply missed it.

Media interest has been high because they listen to the announcer proclaiming it was a great head’s up play and are trying to figure out what the rest of the world missed.  Again, Occam’s Razor … the announcer doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

I haven’t pulled the whole game, but I was told it ended up having no effect beyond the pitcher throwing a few more pitches, so the league office is not blowing it up. The runner didn’t score on the play or afterwards.

[Velho]

41 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

I haven’t pulled the whole game, but I was told it ended up having no effect beyond the pitcher throwing a few more pitches, so the league office is not blowing it up.

🤦‍♂️ Taking that in a vacuum and as true so that I can  

How to tell me you don't care without telling me.

Epitome of dishonest harmony over honest conflict in the name of getting it right.

It is a developmental league so I'm not saying anyone should be boiled for soap but I sincerely hope this was sincerely taken as a teaching moment and not given the ol' Smitty "eh, I called a balk when the all wasn't in play, whatever. The right team won"

Results oriented thinking is a crime against humanity.

[The Man in Blue]

I may have made that sound worse than it was.  Let me try it this way . . . 

It was not shrugged off.  Care and concern were definitely administered.  There was not a need to boil anybody in tallow or drag them naked through a cactus patch.

[834k3r]

Mmm...beef tallow.