Runner interference - WCWS last game, last play

[UmpSteve]

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.

[MTR]

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...

And the reason has nothing to do with the play at hand. The BR can run out to the LF, give her a high five, and run to 1B if she pleases. The 3' lane ONLY applies in any rule when a defender is attempting to RECEIVE a throw trying to retire the BR. Other than that, it doesn't exists for the purpose of applying any rules.

[MTR]

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.[/quote]

That is part of the problem in today's game. As noted above, the umpires are supposed to be the best the NCAA has to offer, what about the coaches? When you have the coaches and olympic-experienced talking heads rattling off pure crap, people suck it right up as fact. We see this every day.

Shouldn't these people be the best, or at least, strive to know what they are talking about before they make announcements to a global audience? Misinformation does more harm to this game than a questionable call by an umpire ever will.

Heard a story a few years back from a former member of ASA's national staff where he was stationed in the press box at one of these events to help with rule interpretation and explanations. He said the stuff they were coming up with on air was so bad and embarrassing, he bailed and got as far away from there as he could.

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.

Could you imagine what would have happened if the PU had the left arm extended while the BU killed the play? Now, that would have been fun and painful to watch.

INT was the only possible resolution once the BU killed the play. Anything else would have been messier than the field.

[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???

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.

It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of understanding what interference is and who has priority. It doesn't matter if you think that the defender moved into the runner. If the runner wasn't in the fielder's path to get the ball, then there wouldn't have been contact. It's interference in every code.

[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???

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.

DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. I didn't say she had to be in the lane. I know what three foot lane interference is. What I said is if she was running where she should have been, there wouldn't have been an issue.

[UmpSteve]

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???

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.

DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. I didn't say she had to be in the lane. I know what three foot lane interference is. What I said is if she was running where she should have been, there wouldn't have been an issue.

OK, then; to avoid misquoting you, please state where the runner should have been running, with a rules reference.

Absent that clarification, perhaps you could concede that your statement implies you believe she should have been running in the (inapplicable) running lane. Because any other explanation would either have no rule reference or be unsupported by rule, since the runner has no obligation or requirement to run in any specific area at that time, just places she could not run (cannot interfere, cannot run bases in reverse order, cannot enter a team area or any other dead ball territory).

[coachadub]

OK, let's get past where the runner should have been. I think everyone should be clear on that topic.

Instead, let's get down to the call that was made on the field that night. Do you agree with Interference? Should Obstruction been called? Give your answer and state your reasoning....

I say OBSTRUCTION all the way. Watched this play more than a dozen times. Defensive player moves in a direction that does not indicate she is making an effort to field the ball. This move creates contact, this contact prevented runner from obtaining the next base. The runner moved in an effort to afford the fielder the opportunity to make the initial play.

Your turn....

[Fredegar]

What AntiClone (and possibly Coach Gasso) mean is that, in this particular situation, had the BR been in the running lane (or anywhere on the other side of the baseline), contact would have been avoided, as the ball was fielded in fair territory.

UmpSteve (and MTR), thanks for the reminder about mechanics to explain why the umpires conferred before making a single call.

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..

Given the split-second call being made, this is INT. F3 is allowed to change direction when fielding a ball. Maybe she wants to field it from the side, to set her feet for the throw, or maybe she misjudges the bouncing ball. It's not like the ball was nowhere near the contact. Sorry, it doesn't "excuse" the runner. Even with the benefit of slo-mo replays, most umpires would still have INT on this. In the end, yes, it's a judgment call, but there would be FAR more complaining had the call been OBS.

[MTR]

DO NOT MISQUOTE ME. I didn't say she had to be in the lane. I know what three foot lane interference is. What I said is if she was running where she should have been, there wouldn't have been an issue.

IMO, she was running where she should have been. Where do you think she should have been? The BR even made a very clear and distinctive move to the left to allow F3 who was moving toward the line unhindered access to the batted ball. If you look at all the replays, F3 braced and led with the right shoulder to her right, stepped back to her left and picked up what was going to be a foul ball.

[MTR]

What AntiClone (and possibly Coach Gasso) mean is that, in this particular situation, had the BR been in the running lane (or anywhere on the other side of the baseline), contact would have been avoided, as the ball was fielded in fair territory.

Not necessarily so. Even if the runner is on the foul side, she still would have had to move for F3 which was heading in that direction.

UmpSteve (and MTR), thanks for the reminder about mechanics to explain why the umpires conferred before making a single call.

Given the split-second call being made, this is INT. F3 is allowed to change direction when fielding a ball.

No, not always. She must be playing the ball. She literally moved away from the ball to make the contact. I have no problem the umpires made an INT call, that is what I would have expected in this tournament. However, I wouldn't have had a problem if they went the other way, as such a call could be equally argued without the stretch people are trying to make to justify it. Of course, if OBS was ruled, it simple would have been a strike since it was most likely going to be a foul ball.

Maybe she wants to field it from the side, to set her feet for the throw, or maybe she misjudges the bouncing ball. It's not like the ball was nowhere near the contact. Sorry, it doesn't "excuse" the runner. Even with the benefit of slo-mo replays, most umpires would still have INT on this. In the end, yes, it's a judgment call, but there would be FAR more complaining had the call been OBS.

IMO, I don't think so, not from the trained eye.