Skip navigation

2339 Views 10 Replies Latest reply: Jun 14, 2011 2:19 PM by oldslowjogger RSS
jalamander Amateur 10 posts since
May 30, 2007
Currently Being Moderated

Jun 13, 2011 7:36 AM

Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

Posted this on FED/NCAA board, also.

 

Was at the local diner last night. I could barely see the screen. Couldn't hear a thing, but was sorta kinda watching the CWS semi-final. It was Arizone State vs Texas. Arizona was up by 1 run. I beliee the score was 2-1.

 

Top of 4th, Unknown nbr of outs, R1, 3-2 pitch. R1 is stealing. the pitch is high for ball 4. However, the catcher makes a throw to 2nd on the stealing runner. As the runner slides into 2nd the thrown ball hits the runner's right hand and is deflected into center field. R1 then runs to 3rd, arriving safely. So now you have R1 on 3rd and batter-runner on 1st.

 

A coach complains and the next thing I see is a huddle of four umpires. The huddle last a lot longer than I ever thought a huddle should last.

Eventually, they put R1 back on 2nd and batter-runner stays at 1st.

 

Closed Caption was on so I could see the announcer indicating, I think, the call was interference on R1, but because of the walk (he was entitled to 2nd) the umpires did not call an out, but simply sent him back to 2nd. And...if it had been a "true" steal situation, R1 would have been out on interference. And then, I see them discussing possible batter interference, and applyiong the same logic. Well, that's announcer talk. I don't know of anyone who would believe that but the two talking heads in the booth.

 

Soon after that, we left the diner. So, I have no clue as to what really happend.Can anyone fill me? What kind of call did the umpires make? Did they call inteference on R1? Why did he have to go back to 2nd base?

 

Jalamander

 

 

  • DawgDays Pro 156 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    1. Jun 13, 2011 9:06 AM (in response to jalamander)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    Here's the description from the ESPN article:

     

    "Joey DeMichele singled with one out. As Zach Wilson was about to take a walk on a full-count pitch, DeMichele headed toward second and advanced to third when Texas second baseman Jordan Etier bobbled a throw from catcher Jacob Felts. But Wilson was ruled out for interference for getting in the way of Felts on the throw and the umpire ruled DeMichele had to return to first base."

     

    The NCAA rule reads as follows:

     

    "The batter is out when the batter intentionally or unintentionally interferes with the catcher’s fielding or throwing by stepping out of the batter’s box or making any other movement that hinders a defensive player’s action at home plate;"

     

    The rule doesn't say that there has to be a play on.  So, I guess, by the letter of the rule, the batter is out.

     

    There is the possibility that there could be subsequent play at 2B.  For example, the runner COULD overrun 2B, could choose to advance to 3B.

  • oldslowjogger Amateur 18 posts since
    Jun 29, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    3. Jun 14, 2011 7:28 AM (in response to jalamander)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    A very "gutsy" call by the plate umpire that's for sure, especially in such a critical game!  Even Augie Garrido (Texas coach) was surprised at the eventual ruling on that call as he was just hoping they'd put R1 (now R3) back at 2nd.  You certainly leave the door open for future lobbying for interference calls by the BR on EVERY walk by calling that.  Example: Nobody on, BR walks, F2 throws down to F3 at first as the BR is jogging inside the 3' line towards 1st and the ball glances off his helmet so the BR heads down to 2nd.  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

  • Mark_in_SD Legend 207 posts since
    May 25, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    4. Jun 14, 2011 9:56 AM (in response to DawgDays)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    Am I ever confused here.  You have R1 stealing on a 3-2 pitch.  The pitch is ball 4 so the batter instantly becomes a BR.  Presumably, he heads towards first but is called out for interference with F2's throw to 2nd?  This doesn't make any sense.  I haven't found a video yet.  Anybody else have any luck?

  • Michael_Taylor Community Moderator 318 posts since
    May 25, 2007
  • MyTwoSons Community Moderator 224 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    6. Jun 14, 2011 10:57 AM (in response to Michael_Taylor)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    Looks like it was a bad call.

  • MyTwoSons Community Moderator 224 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    7. Jun 14, 2011 11:10 AM (in response to MyTwoSons)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    It was a walk so both the R1 and the BR were entitled to the next respective base, 2nd and 1st, by virtue of the walk.  There was also no contact by the catcher on the batter.  Unless the NCAA rule is different the batter was technically still in the box because his foot was on the line.

  • MyTwoSons Community Moderator 224 posts since
    May 30, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    8. Jun 14, 2011 11:10 AM (in response to MyTwoSons)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    Someone commented on a blog that it was not a live play.  That is wrong...The R1 was at risk if he had decided to overrun 2nd base or continue to 3rd, unlike a HBP which is a dead ball.

  • Mark_in_SD Legend 207 posts since
    May 25, 2007

    Thanks for the video.

     

    I don't see anything here.  Unless NCAA and OBR rules are VERY different, there was absolutely nothing here.  The BR (and he became a BR the instant it was Ball 4) has every right to jog to first on that play.  I don't see how this is anybody's fault but F2's (why is he making that throw anyway?  He had to know that pitch was WAY out of the strike zone.).

  • oldslowjogger Amateur 18 posts since
    Jun 29, 2007
    Currently Being Moderated
    10. Jun 14, 2011 2:19 PM (in response to Mark_in_SD)
    Re: Was it interference? CWS (Ariz. St. vs Texas)

    I agree Mark.  F2 was obviously hoping for a strike-em-out-throw-em-out scenario and pulled the trigger a titch early.  The sad part about this play is that the umpires actually conferenced after the call by the plate umpire.  The conference was for quite some time too.  But in this case I have to say the NCAA on their hats and shirts stands for NO CLUE AT ALL as there was no BI there.  BS? Yep, but BI no way!

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...