Protest in Oregon/Penn State

[johnnyg08]

What do we think? Does Penn State have a case or is the interference judgement vs a misapplication? 

NCAA 7-11-n

“A whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory, whether intentionally or not, and it interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play immediately after the batter becomes a batter-runner. Interference shall be called;

Note 1: The batter, after hitting a ball or becoming a batter-runner, has some responsibility about where they throw their bat so that it does not interfere with a defensive player making a play on the ball. However, once that initial play in the area of home plate is over, it would be unfair to punish the batter if the defense throws a ball toward home plate to attempt another play and F2 or another fielder steps on the bat.”

[grayhawk]

I do think interference should have been called. F2 stepped right on the bat, and even if it hindered him for a brief moment, it still hindered him. Think of some obstruction calls that are made in MLB where the runner is barely hindered and those calls are still made.

However, I do not think the protest will stand unless the crew's explanation was that the batter-runner didn't do it intentionally or something else that showed the rule was misapplied.

[Velho]

For completeness, looking across OBR, NCAA, NFHS, and LL, they all are the same.

OBR 5.09(a)(8) Comment "If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not."

NFHS 7-3-6 "If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference will be called."

LL 6.05(g)A.R. "If a bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not."

[The Man in Blue]

Let me start with … RLI, anybody?

 

OK, now, let me parse the bat rule.  How long is a “thrown bat” a “thrown bat”?  At what point is it just a bat?  
 

I know I am reading into those rule cites (I am trying not to, but I am), but I read them as the thrown bat is causing interference because it in motion due of the throw.  Not because a discarded bat is laying on the field, in which case it is part of the field.

Think of it like the difference when we consider a second contact … there is a difference between the ball hitting the bat and the bat hitting the ball.

[834k3r]

18 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Let me start with … RLI, anybody?

That's what I've got.

[Velho]

14 minutes ago, 834k3r said:

19 hours ago, The Man in Blue said:

Let me start with … RLI, anybody?

That's what I've got.

Counter argument: The runner didn't hinder either fielder. F2 had a clean line of sight and the throw hit F3 in the glove. 

NCAA 7-11-p "Note 1: If the batter-runner is running illegally to first base and their being outside the lane alters the throw of a fielder, hinders or alters a fielder’s opportunity to field the throw, or the batter-runner is hit by the throw that has been made in an attempt to make a play, it shall be called interference and the batter-runner is to be called out."

[jimurrayalterego]

10 minutes ago, Velho said:

Counter argument: The runner didn't hinder either fielder. F2 had a clean line of sight and the throw hit F3 in the glove. 

 

F3 couldn't glove it because the B-R blocked his view.

[Velho]

1 hour ago, jimurrayalterego said:

1 hour ago, Velho said:

Counter argument: The runner didn't hinder either fielder. F2 had a clean line of sight and the throw hit F3 in the glove. 

 

F3 couldn't glove it because the B-R blocked his view.

I can follow that possibility. Thanks.

[The Man in Blue]

So what was the outcome on this?

[jimurrayalterego]

17 minutes ago, The Man in Blue said:

So what was the outcome on this?

NCAA will issue a statement as to the P as soon as they figure out if the P was about a rule or judgement. Just like MLB does about stuff.

[The Man in Blue]

34 minutes ago, jimurrayalterego said:

NCAA will issue a statement as to the P as soon as they figure out if the P was about a rule or judgement. Just like MLB does about stuff.

 

 

Come on, man.  It's Tuesday already!

[BigBlue4u]

On 4/26/2026 at 11:30 AM, Velho said:

For completeness, looking across OBR, NCAA, NFHS, and LL, they all are the same.

OBR 5.09(a)(8) Comment "If a whole bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not."

NFHS 7-3-6 "If a whole bat is thrown and interferes with a defensive player attempting a play, interference will be called."

LL 6.05(g)A.R. "If a bat is thrown into fair or foul territory and interferes with a defensive player attempting to make a play, interference shall be called, whether intentional or not."

So, Velho, are you saying that throwing a bat or dropping a bat are one and the same?  If so, I have to disagree. The only time dropping a bat would be interference would be if it was dropped intentionally and in a way to interfere with a fielder.

[Velho]

46 minutes ago, BigBlue4u said:

So, Velho, are you saying that throwing a bat or dropping a bat are one and the same?

I didn't say anything. I pasted the rulebooks. 😉

I follow the distinction you're making given earlier in 5.08(a)(8) "If the batter-runner drops his bat and the ball rolls against the bat in fair territory and, in the umpire’s judgment, there was no intention to interfere with the course of the ball, the ball is alive and in play."

I do have to wonder though, given that a distinction is made regarding a ball hit the bat in the very same section, why did rule maker not make a distinction about the bat interfering with a fielder if the intent is to differentiate?

FWIW, In J/R it simply says "his whole bat hinders a fielder trying to make a play". MiLB Manual reiterates the existing language with no adds, and the MLB Manual is silent.

[For those that have it, does Wendlestedt say anything ( @jimurrayalterego maybe?)]

Bolstering your argument further, in 5.09(a)(8) it says "If, in the umpire’s judgment, there is intent on the part of a base runner to interfere with a batted or thrown ball by dropping the helmet or throwing it at the ball, then the runner would be out, the ball dead and runners would return to last base legally touched."

The NCAA comment, to me, seems they are covering the discarded bat, though they use the word 'thrown', since they say BR has "some responsibility": "Note 1: The batter, after hitting a ball or becoming a batter-runner, has some responsibility about where they throw their bat so that it does not interfere with a defensive player making a play on the ball."

Last thought, since it's not said to be legal, such as the ball hitting a dropped bat, going back to the definition of Interference may be a foundation to start from:

INTERFERENCE

(a) Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play.

 

Holding my breath for the Protest ruling (and that it has any detail to work from).

[BigBlue4u]

34 minutes ago, Velho said:

Holding my breath for the Protest ruling (and that it has any detail to work from).

Not from me.  You brought up some good points!