Runner interference - WCWS last game, last play

[AlwaysImprove]

Last play of the game in last nights final game between Bama and OU. Nobody on. Batter bunts ball up first base line. Batter-Runner runs past ball, in fair territory, and runs into fielder. Officials ruled interference batter-runner is out. That seems correct.

The commentators were making a big deal about the runner being in fair territory. Would that matter?

Can the fielder alter their path significantly, which would then create a contact scenario, not just to field the ball?

[ajaywill]

There was a similar play in one of ther earlier games of the WCWS as well and the talking heads also made a big deal about the batter-runner being in fair territory...it doesn't matter. The batter-runner or runner cannot interfere with a fielder in the act of fielding a fair batted ball or a fly ball over foul territory.

As for your second question, the interference rule protects ONE fielder in the act of fielding the ball. If the fielder alters her path significantly to create contact with the runner, she is not really in the act of fielding the ball now, is she? That should be ruled Obstruction on the fielder.

[Sftbll4ever]

So was I the only one that saw the fielder go out of her way to lay into the runner and then go for the ball?

[Trophy Hunter]

So was I the only one that saw the fielder go out of her way to lay into the runner and then go for the ball?

Yup.

Good fielders learn how to do this. Base runners have to know better.

[coachadub]

Well, during live action and after reviewing it multiple times, the Bama 1st baseman did a great job of getting the call to go their way. However, in doing so, SHE created the contact WITHOUT continuing to try and field the ball. Thus, my initial call (albeit at home on the couch) was right IMHO....OBSTRUCTION!! Runner safe at 1st because she would have made it without being "flat-backed".

The thing that really puzzled me more than the call going the way it did was how the OU coach sat in the dugout without even TRYING to make an argument??!! That call obviously proved crucial once Chamberlain hit her HR. I personally would have argued that call as if my life depended on it....

[MTR]

So was I the only one that saw the fielder go out of her way to lay into the runner and then go for the ball?

Nope, IMO, this was not INT. The BR intentionally moved inside (which is permissible) when she saw F3 come down the line for the ball. When F3 intentionally (IMO) moved to make contact with the ball as stated in another post.

However, I wouldn't expect anything else to be ruled in this series of games.

[AlwaysImprove]

I guess I was giving the benefit of the doubt to the blues. If the ball was still behind batter-runner, even after batter-runner moved over, fielder has a right to go through her to the ball.

In the replay it was it clear where the ball was in regards to F3 and the BR?

That call would have really changed the game.

[Anti-Clone]

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???

[coachadub]

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.

[Cricket]

To me, it was an easy call. The umpires were right and Gasso knew it, which is why she didn't even try to argue the call.

Here is the transcript of the post game interview with Gasso: "Yeah, Destinee (Martinez) was on the wrong side of the line. When there was that collision, that was the right call. She was just trying to be aggressive, trying to make something happen. It was a tough play. She was just trying to make something happen."

If the batter was running in the running lane, which is in foul territory, rather than inside the baseline, which is fair territory, there is no contact. With the placement of the hit ball, and her speed, it's an infield single and Chamberlain's homerun ties the game.

There is a running lane, marked in chalk, between home and first for a reason.

Just my two cents...