OBS Call

[MTR]

Agree. Horrible call, especially given that there was such a clear lack of a play on the BR at 1b. Killed ND's rally, which could have made that game very interesting. Tough break for ND, lucky break for AZ.

Don't care if there was a play at 1B, it wasn't interference.

[AlwaysImprove]

Agree. Horrible call, especially given that there was such a clear lack of a play on the BR at 1b. Killed ND's rally, which could have made that game very interesting. Tough break for ND, lucky break for AZ.

Don't care if there was a play at 1B, it wasn't interference.

I thought if there was a play at 1b, the way the rules read, this would be INT. I agree 100%, in practical terms the runner can not go poof.

In my read of the rules on this, if the defense was making the play, and it looked like the play should result in an out; Whether the fielder interfered, purposely or inadvertently, this would result in interference. Am I not understanding?

[hit4power]

I think you are reading the rule backwards, so to speak.

First, the umpire must judge whether the runner committed an act of interference. If yes, then he has to assess the proper penalty. What's happening (or might have happened) at 1B only matters in assessing the penalty as I understand it. If the act of INT results in the prevention of an out at 1B, then and only then, is the additional penalty of the BR being called out assessed.

The issue is always what constitutes an act of INT. INT does not depend on what is (or might have) happened elsewhere on the field. Most umps I've talked with will not call INT on the runner in this situation unless the runner does something out of the ordinary such as change direction, jump up or reach out to deflect the throw, etc. Getting nailed by throw while running to the base on her established base path is a DMF (dumb move fielder) who didn't clear a throwing lane for herself.

[MTR]

In my read of the rules on this, if the defense was making the play, and it looked like the play should result in an out; Whether the fielder interfered, purposely or inadvertently, this would result in interference. Am I not understanding?

NCAA:
1.72 Interference
Equipment or the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire or spectator that denies
the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or
unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

The runner did what a runner is supposed to do, try to advance to the next base. She is neither required or expected to concede the base just because she may be ruled out. This runner committed no act of INT.

It is a myth, usually more prevalent in the SP game, that a runner must move out of the way to not be charged with INT. Actually, turning out WOULD be an act of interference if that move causes INT with the defense attempting to make a play. In that case, the runner closest to home would be ruled out.

It is also true that, as you presumed, there needs to be a play with which to interfere and obviously that was not the case here though that just adds gas to the fire.

[AlwaysImprove]

In my read of the rules on this, if the defense was making the play, and it looked like the play should result in an out; Whether the fielder interfered, purposely or inadvertently, this would result in interference. Am I not understanding?

NCAA:
1.72 Interference
Equipment or the act of an offensive player, coach, umpire or spectator that denies
the fielder a reasonable opportunity to play the ball. The act may be intentional or
unintentional and the ball must have been playable.

The runner did what a runner is supposed to do, try to advance to the next base. She is neither required or expected to concede the base just because she may be ruled out. This runner committed no act of INT.

It is a myth, usually more prevalent in the SP game, that a runner must move out of the way to not be charged with INT. Actually, turning out WOULD be an act of interference if that move causes INT with the defense attempting to make a play. In that case, the runner closest to home would be ruled out.

It is also true that, as you presumed, there needs to be a play with which to interfere and obviously that was not the case here though that just adds gas to the fire.

We lost a similar call a few years back. R1 going from 2b to 3b, she was drifting off course because she was watching the BR run to 1b. She ran into the ball as it left F6's hand. All inadvertent. But she was on an odd course.

Umpire ruled INT. I asked around, the general consensus was that it was INT.

[CoachJaimie]

Can you imagine every infielder turning two, just throw at the runner's head. It is automatic double play. That was a horrible call.