coachadub wrote:Anti-Clone wrote:If the batter-runner was running where she should have been, it would not have been an issue. It looked to me that the 1st baseman actually moved more toward the line to avoid contact, then moved toward the ball, which was several feet off of the line. The batter-runner complicate the play by causing contact, that's interference. Even if it was "mutual" contact by both of them moving, it's still interference. Plus, a defender isn't required to continue to attempt to play the ball, so whoever suggested that is dead wrong. Why? Because the BALL IS DEAD. What difference would a subsequent act by the defender make???
Bottom line is in one's opinion, did the batter-runner "interfere" with the fielder's ability to make a play on the ball. And as stated previously, IMO, the fielder moved to her right and created contact with the BR when the ball was in front of her. This action excuses the BR's location on the field and actually created the scenario where one could rule that the fielder "obstructed" the BR's ability to obtain the next base. Dead ball should only be called if the ump is ruling Interference....and interference can be called WITHOUT contact even being made.
Not sure why, after reviewing again, the BU put up his hands (which is signaling a dead ball situation), but then went to the PU, whom then in turn ruled the runner out??!!
I know this play is a judgement call, but these are supposed to be the best the NCAA has to offer. Could have been handled better .....IMHO.
OK, several misstatements here. There is no requirement that runners run in the running lane, fair or foul territory, in any situation OTHER than to avoid interfering with the ability of a defensive player to receive a throw to first base. Even if Coach Gasso thinks it applies, Anti-Clone thinks it applies, or coachadub thinks the actions of F3 excuse that location. Totally inapplicable to the play.
So, why did U1 kill the play, then confer with PU? Actually pretty simple, I believe. The collision started at the start of the running lane; which is significant ONLY because the PU has primary calling responsibility TO that point, and U1 has primary calling responsibility AFTER that point. So, while it was clear the judgment was it IS interference, they got together to make sure the right umpire made the obvious call. A "double call", even if the same call, AND the right call, is still considered a mechanics mistake by someone.