Botched Call ? Cal Baptist - UNC

[YoungBuck]

Watching the Cal Baptist v North Carolina game in Peurto Vallarta... just wanted to confirm that there does not need to be contact for interference?

The batted ball was hit at the second baseman. The second baseman charged the batted ball. The runner going from first to second interfered with the play but no contact was created. The umpires huddled and deemed there was no issue. The official score keeper gave an error to the second baseman.

I know this topic has been discussed heavily on this board... suprised the call was what it was.

 

[JayIndy]

Looked like no contact made at all. Runner didn't change path. I think the fielder assumed the runner WOULD make contact and gave up on it.

And now they went back and removed the error on the play

 

[erniekru]

How are you watching the game?

 

[YoungBuck]

How are you watching the game?

Flo Softball

 

[The Man In Blue]

HTBT ... or video?

You are correct that contact is not necessary. The sticky wicket on these are when the fielder gives up though. I can't even think of a good way to say this, but if the fielder gives up in anticipation of a possible interference, then there likely isn't interference. The runner didn't cause it, the fielder chose to give up thinking it could happen.

I hope that makes sense ...

 

[Lobster Birch]

Botched badly in my opinion.

 

[YoungBuck]

HTBT ... or video?

You are correct that contact is not necessary. The sticky wicket on these are when the fielder gives up though. I can't even think of a good way to say this, but if the fielder gives up in anticipation of a possible interference, then there likely isn't interference. The runner didn't cause it, the fielder chose to give up thinking it could happen.

I hope that makes sense ...

Yes, makes complete sense. What I have seen in the past (not sure if I agree with it) is that coaches teach to go to seek out contact. I don't think that 's a good direction for the sport to go.

 

[The Man In Blue]

Yes, makes complete sense. What I have seen in the past (not sure if I agree with it) is that coaches teach to go to seek out contact. I don't think that 's a good direction for the sport to go.

It is ABSOLUTELY NOT a good way for the sport to go. Anytime I have heard a similar statement during a game, it was immediately followed by a trip to the dugout by me. The conversation that followed was something along the lines of, "Coach, now that you said it out loud, if that happens, both you and the player get to go home early today."


I can't quite tell, but looks like you may be around my neck of the woods!

 

[MoJo]

Watching the Cal Baptist v North Carolina game in Peurto Vallarta... just wanted to confirm that there does not need to be contact for interference?

The batted ball was hit at the second baseman. The second baseman charged the batted ball. The runner going from first to second interfered with the play but no contact was created. The umpires huddled and deemed there was no issue. The official score keeper gave an error to the second baseman.

I know this topic has been discussed heavily on this board... suprised the call was what it was.

There does not need to be contact for interference. 99% of umps (at all levels) can't wrap their brain around that though. I bet all of them in the huddle said something about "no contact" as justification.

There was a big MLB game last season were the batter interfered with the throw to 2nd. Catcher pulled up just as the batter stepped over the plate. Catcher would have totally smashed his hand into the batters helmet. NO call. Pretty sure the catcher didn't want to ruin his multi-million dollar career.

Yes, makes complete sense. What I have seen in the past (not sure if I agree with it) is that coaches teach to go to seek out contact. I don't think that 's a good direction for the sport to go.

Totally. No need to have a player (with a helmet on) run full tilt into the blind side of a stationary player.

 

[The Man In Blue]

There does not need to be contact for interference. 99% of umps (at all levels) can't wrap their brain around that though. I bet all of them in the huddle said something about "no contact" as justification.

There was a big MLB game last season were the batter interfered with the throw to 2nd. Catcher pulled up just as the batter stepped over the plate. Catcher would have totally smashed his hand into the batters helmet. NO call. Pretty sure the catcher didn't want to ruin his multi-million dollar career.


Totally. No need to have a player (with a helmet on) run full tilt into the blind side of a stationary player.

99% is a vast over-exaggeration. Not saying there are ones that don't get it, but the vast majority of officials will get this call right.

Just because the offense does something does not mean there is automatically interference. While there does not need to be contact and we don't want to encourage contact, the defense cannot do nothing or just completely quit and claim interference. The defense still has to be attempting a play for interference to occur. This can be a very tenuous line and 99.9% of the time will be a HTBT (had to be there) call.

I don't know if it is out there, but I would love to see video of the OP described play.