Did anyone else see the interference call in the Texas game?

[IndySooner]

I'm still trying to figure it out. Here's the situation:

Runner on first, 3-1 count. Pitch is a ball. Runner from first is running on the play. Catcher throws down to second and the ball gets away. Batter is called for interference for supposedly getting in the way of the catchers' throw. Batter is out and the runner goes back to first base.

Here's what I don't understand: The runner was already guaranteed second base on the walk. Why would he have to go back to first base? I understand that it's a live ball and that the batter can technically be out for walking to first base if he gets in the way of the catchers' throw (though it was a pretty weak interference call in the first place) but I don't understand why the runner would go back to first base. It doesn't make any sense, I've read the rule book up and down trying to figure it out, and the rules just aren't clear on this situation.

I know we have some umpires and coaches on here, just curious what everyone else thought.

Also, that horrible call changed the momentum in that game, and coupled with a phantom balk call in the next half-inning, propelled Texas to the CWS.

[rysooner]

I'm still trying to figure it out. Here's the situation:

Runner on first, 3-1 count. Pitch is a ball. Runner from first is running on the play. Catcher throws down to second and the ball gets away. Batter is called for interference for supposedly getting in the way of the catchers' throw. Batter is out and the runner goes back to first base.

Here's what I don't understand: The runner was already guaranteed second base on the walk. Why would he have to go back to first base? I understand that it's a live ball and that the batter can technically be out for walking to first base if he gets in the way of the catchers' throw (though it was a pretty weak interference call in the first place) but I don't understand why the runner would go back to first base. It doesn't make any sense, I've read the rule book up and down trying to figure it out, and the rules just aren't clear on this situation.

I know we have some umpires and coaches on here, just curious what everyone else thought.

Also, that horrible call changed the momentum in that game, and coupled with a phantom balk call in the next half-inning, propelled Texas to the CWS.

Both calls made by the same umpire also....

[NMSooner'80]

I'm listening to KREF at work (my usual thing to do after lunch). Someone called in to Myron about it, and they were saying that Augie always seems to get his way after he complains about something. I'm guessing that Augie really does have that kind of undeserved influence. :texan:

[northspeter]

I'm still trying to figure it out. Here's the situation:

Runner on first, 3-1 count. Pitch is a ball. Runner from first is running on the play. Catcher throws down to second and the ball gets away. Batter is called for interference for supposedly getting in the way of the catchers' throw. Batter is out and the runner goes back to first base.

Here's what I don't understand: The runner was already guaranteed second base on the walk. Why would he have to go back to first base? I understand that it's a live ball and that the batter can technically be out for walking to first base if he gets in the way of the catchers' throw (though it was a pretty weak interference call in the first place) but I don't understand why the runner would go back to first base. It doesn't make any sense, I've read the rule book up and down trying to figure it out, and the rules just aren't clear on this situation.

I know we have some umpires and coaches on here, just curious what everyone else thought.

Also, that horrible call changed the momentum in that game, and coupled with a phantom balk call in the next half-inning, propelled Texas to the CWS.

if the pitch is called a ball resulting in a walk and the catcher's throw got away... then its on the cather for making the throw on a ball 4... runners can advance... that's the way i understand it anyway... i dont even think interference on the batter is warranted in that case either...

[nighttrain12]

Here's the game recap with video of that play.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/baseball/2011-06-12/texas-finishes-arizona-state

Calling batter's interference was a very poor call under the circumstances but I can understand how the rule was applied in this situation. The runner was attempting to steal 2nd base and though it was ball 4, you can't expect the catcher to wait for the ball/strike call and then decide to throw it.

The rule is in place to prevent any benefit for either the batter or any runners when that happens. The batter was called out without reaching first base and since the runner had not touched 2nd base yet (though he was entitled to automatically before the batter interference), he had to go back to first by rule.

[northspeter]

i think batter's interference has to be obvious.. otherwise its a no call... jmo...

[IndySooner]

The rule is in place to prevent any benefit for either the batter or any runners when that happens. The batter was called out without reaching first base and since the runner had not touched 2nd base yet (though he was entitled to automatically before the batter interference), he had to go back to first by rule.

I know that's what they ruled, but I've read the rule book over and over again, and it's not specific enough for me to be convinced that is the right call. It's a VERY poorly written rule.

[BlackwellSooner]

Here's the game recap with video of that play.
http://www.ncaa.com/news/baseball/20...-arizona-state

I watched the video repeatedly, and the catcher's throw to second base was already halfway to the pitcher's mound before the batter ever left the batter's box on the right hand side of the plate. He did not cross the plate/throwing lane until the ball was already halfway to second! It was NOT catcher's interference!

[nighttrain12]

It's a judgment call and the home plate umpire used poor judgment in saying that it was a case of interference. It should have been a no call and runners on 1st and 3rd. Otherwise, the rule is clear that the runner has to go back to first base since he hadn't reached second base at the instant the interference was called.

The narrator of the video explained it perfectly though he added it was a bad call, not a misinterpretation of the rules.

[IndySooner]

It's a judgment call and the home plate umpire used poor judgment in saying that it was a case of interference. It should have been a no call and runners on 1st and 3rd. Otherwise, the rule is clear that the runner has to go back to first base since he hadn't reached second base at the instant the interference was called.

The narrator of the video explained it perfectly though he added it was a bad call, not a misinterpretation of the rules.

I have talked to four people, two coaches and two umpires, all of whom disagree with this interpretation of the rule. What everyone agrees on is that the interference is a judgment call but they also agree that the runner should have been on second base. The base that should have been taken away was third because with the walk, the runner is assumed to be on 2nd.

That said, no one is 100 percent confident in the assessment because the rule is so unclear.

[Sooner11JK]

I have talked to four people, two coaches and two umpires, all of whom disagree with this interpretation of the rule. What everyone agrees on is that the interference is a judgment call but they also agree that the runner should have been on second base. The base that should have been taken away was third because with the walk, the runner is assumed to be on 2nd.

That said, no one is 100 percent confident in the assessment because the rule is so unclear.

The balk call might have been just as bad. What a joke.

[IndySooner]

The balk call might have been just as bad. What a joke.

It was, but I'm not arguing that because it's again a judgment call. The interference play has part judgment and part rulebook and I think they completely botched the rulebook portion of the call.

Augie gets "judgment" calls in Austin. We all know that. We've seen it MANY times first hand.

[IndySooner]

Here is the rule: Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

I still think 2nd base is the base that is legally "touched" in this instance. The umpire has already "judged" a walk, meaning the runner is on 2nd base already. Just because he hasn't touched the base yet, doesn't mean he isn't on the base. He's assumed to be on the base the second ball four is called.

I think it's a misinterpretation of the rule.

By the way, there's NOTHING in the rulebook that states that the interference is given precedent over the walk. That was the explanation the coaches were given as to why the runner was sent back to first base.

And to re-iterate, it was a HORRIBLE interference call in the first place.

[bcolston15]

Here is the rule: Rule 6.06(c) Comment: If the batter interferes with the catcher, the plate umpire shall call “interference.” The batter is out and the ball dead. No player may advance on such interference (offensive interference) and all runners must return to the last base that was, in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference.

It was enforced correctly. The interference negated ball four because it made the batter out, thus the runner from first was no longer entitled to second base.

That doesn't mean it was judged correctly.

[IndySooner]

It was enforced correctly. The interference negated ball four because it made the batter out, thus the runner from first was no longer entitled to second base.

That doesn't mean it was judged correctly.

After ball four is judged, though, the batter becomes a runner. Therefore, since ball four was called, it's no longer batters' interference, it's runner's interference, and the walk does take precedent.

To me, this would be the rule that would apply:

Rule 7.04(b) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance
past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for
the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.
Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third
base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would
score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to
do was proceed and touch the next base.

[IndySooner]

By the way, the rule clearly states that the batter is not interfering with a throw if he's in the batter's box. The only way a batter can be interfering in the batters' box is if there's a play at the plate.

That said, I still think we're talking runner's interference in this case and not batter's interference.

If this is interference, and everyone's in agreement, then on every walk with a runner forced to advance, I want my catcher to throw the ball into centerfield when the batter goes in front of him to first base. It's interference and the batter's out and the runner goes back to his bag. There's no way the rules are written this way. Zero chance.

[nighttrain12]

I think if the runner on first had just stopped at second base (on ball 4 and throw into center field), then interference would not have been called. The fact the runner kept going to 3rd base showed an advantage gained from the batter's (supposed) interference.

I'd like to see the NCAA clarify the call on this play and perhaps indicate a mistake was made by the umpiring crew.

[bcolston15]

After ball four is judged, though, the batter becomes a runner. Therefore, since ball four was called, it's no longer batters' interference, it's runner's interference, and the walk does take precedent.

To me, this would be the rule that would apply:

Rule 7.04(b) Comment: A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance
past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for
the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score.
Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third
base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would
score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to
do was proceed and touch the next base.

I agree with you that it was poor call, but I promise it was enforced correctly. The runner cannot advance on interference--period-- the runner returns to the base he occupied before the pitch.

[IndySooner]

I agree with you that it was poor call, but I promise it was enforced correctly. The runner cannot advance on interference--period-- the runner returns to the base he occupied before the pitch.

Where does it say that in the rule book. Again, I've talked to four people in the game that disagree with that. The reason that is the "typical" call is you don't EVER see this play on a ball four. Once ball four has been called, the runner is automatically on second base because the batter, who is now a runner, is automatically on first base. The interference happens because the runner, now on second base, has advanced to third on the overthrow. Runner should be moved back to second.

I'm more and more positive of this the more I read about it. Problem is, the rule book is not clear until you define when a batter becomes a runner, which is the second that ball four is called. The rule I quoted above is the only rule that truly applies in this situation.

[IndySooner]

I think if the runner on first had just stopped at second base (on ball 4 and throw into center field), then interference would not have been called. The fact the runner kept going to 3rd base showed an advantage gained from the batter's (supposed) interference.

I'd like to see the NCAA clarify the call on this play and perhaps indicate a mistake was made by the umpiring crew.

There's absolutely no doubt about this. None.

The NCAA will not comment because it would open the game up to a protest by ASU. Why does the conspiracy theorist in me want to go back to the fact that ASU is currently appealing an NCAA ruling against the baseball program?

[IndySooner]

Now I've read up and down the rule book and can't prove that a batter becomes a runner the second ball four is ruled. It implies it in a couple of places, but it doesn't clearly define it that I can find.

I give up. I'm probably wrong, but if I am, this is a loophole that needs to be closed in the rule book. Any room for umpire judgment and manipulation is bad for baseball, in my opinion. Every situation needs to be addressed and this one doesn't seem to be clearly addressed.

[bcolston15]

I think if the runner on first had just stopped at second base (on ball 4 and throw into center field), then interference would not have been called. The fact the runner kept going to 3rd base showed an advantage gained from the batter's (supposed) interference.

I'd like to see the NCAA clarify the call on this play and perhaps indicate a mistake was made by the umpiring crew.

Wrong. The interference was called as the throw was being made. It had nothing to do with the runner and never does.

[nighttrain12]

Here's a comment from the Texas coach (the team that benefited from the interference call). Even he is confused (for the most part).

http://espn.go.com/ncaa/blog/_/name/ncaa_baseball/id/6655414/texas-returns-omaha-comeback-win


In the fourth, Arizona State had a runner advance to third base on a walk and an error, but the runner was moved back to first base and the batter called out after the umpire ruled he had interfered with catcher Jacob Felts' throw to second base.

Garrido said he was "happy" with the result, but admitted he only argued that the runner shouldn't be given third base.

"There's something else about this rule that prevents [runners moving to third base] or we'd be doing it all the time," he said. "I didn't know. I really didn't know that they would do that. I didn't know where it went. I don't have the rule where I can quote it or be able to say, 'Hey, this is how it reads in the rule book.'"

Garrido said he'd never seen interference called on a base on balls.

[IndySooner]

Garrido's making the point I am. It's not cut-and-dried because it NEVER happens.

[IndySooner]

Wrong. The interference was called as the throw was being made. It had nothing to do with the runner and never does.

Not true. Had the runner stopped at 2nd, it wasn't interference, per the rule book. That's the entire premise behind why I think the runner should have been sent back to second base. The reason interference was called is because the runner advanced beyond second base due to the throw into center field.

[nighttrain12]

As far as the runner and batter being entitled to their next bases with the walk, technically they have to actually touch that next base before they are considered on the base. Hypothetically, one or the other could suffer a knee or ankle injury and not make it to the next base. That's why the runner on first was not automatically assumed to be on second base when the interference was called.

[IndySooner]

As far as the runner and batter being entitled to their next bases with the walk, technically they have to actually touch that next base before they are considered on the base. Hypothetically, one or the other could suffer a knee or ankle injury and not make it to the next base. That's why the runner on first was not automatically assumed to be on second base when the interference was called.

That's not the way the rule reads, though. On a bases loaded walk, for example, a run scores even if the runner on first is tagged out going past second base for the third out before the runner touches home plate.

To me, that rule applies more in this situation than the typical interference rule, because of the walk.

[bcolston15]

Not true. Had the runner stopped at 2nd, it wasn't interference, per the rule book. That's the entire premise behind why I think the runner should have been sent back to second base. The reason interference was called is because the runner advanced beyond second base due to the throw into center field.

Just because it was ball four? Otherwise, that would never be the case.

[IndySooner]

Just because it was ball four? Otherwise, that would never be the case.

Because 2nd base is assumed in this case, and therefore, the runner gets second base. If he didn't advance to third, there's no interference.

Yes, it's because of ball four.

By the way, I just Googled "Texas interference play" and this thread is the first thing that pops up. Good job on the SEO by Soonerfans!

[SoonerBorn68]

It was enforced correctly. The interference negated ball four because it made the batter out, thus the runner from first was no longer entitled to second base.

That doesn't mean it was judged correctly.

Wrong.



Per the official NCAA baseball rules (http://www.ncaapublications.com/p-4183-2011-2012-baseball-rules-2-year-publication.aspx), the batter becomes a baserunner "instantly after four balls have been called by the umpire" per Section 2 of Rule 8, Letter B. He is awarded first base and should have right of way to head that direction.

http://arizona.sbnation.com/2011/6/13/2222406/arizona-state-texas-super-regional-finale-marred-by-umpires

The instant ball 4 is called the runner on second is not stealing, he has been awarded 2nd base. The batter is "instantly" a base runner so the catcher is actually in the runner's baseline. It's an E2 with runners on 1st & third, one out.

The phantom balk was just icing on the cake.

[IndySooner]

Wrong.



http://arizona.sbnation.com/2011/6/13/2222406/arizona-state-texas-super-regional-finale-marred-by-umpires

The instant ball 4 is called the runner on second is not stealing, he has been awarded 2nd base. The batter is "instantly" a base runner so the catcher is actually in the runner's baseline. It's an E2 with runners on 1st & third, one out.

The phantom balk was just icing on the cake.

I don't think it's an E2. I think that's incorrect. Interference can still take place because the ball is live. It's not a dead ball. That said, your premise is exactly what I've been arguing that the runner should be on second, not on first.

[SoonerBorn68]

It's a live ball so if the catcher wanted to throw the ball into right field he could. As soon as the runner touched second base he has the option to run to third no matter what is happening on the field. It's an E2 because the catcher decided to throw the ball.

[IndySooner]

It's a live ball so if the catcher wanted to throw the ball into right field he could. As soon as the runner touched second base he has the option to run to third no matter what is happening on the field. It's an E2 because the catcher decided to throw the ball.

Interference can be called, though. It SHOULDN'T have been called, but it can be. In any instance, that's the bottom line. There shouldn't even be a discussion about this, there should have been runners on first and third and ASU SHOULD have had a 3-1 lead instead of a 2-1 lead. Then the questionable (I've seen it a million times and, while I wouldn't have called it, it was borderline) balk call wouldn't have given Texas the lead, etc. The interference call really changed momentum in the game.

[IndySooner]

Here's the rule book:

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/BA12.pdf

If you read Rule 8, Sections 2 and 3, it outlines this play. It talks about the fact that when ball four is called, the batter is now a runner. It also talks about "entitled" bases.

There's no doubt the ruling was incorrect. I've now talked to five umpires who agree with me and none (off of this board anyway) that don't. We can argue whether it was interference or not in the first place, but even if it was, the ruling of where the runner ended up was incorrect.

[northspeter]

Rule 7- Batting
Batter is out when...
f. 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;
PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time
of interference.
Exceptions—
A.R. 1--If, while attempting to advance to first base, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the ball, the batter-runner is declared out, the ball is dead and all runners
return.
A.R. 2--If, while attempting to advance to first base, the batter-runner unintentionally deflects the ball, the ball is live and in play.
Exception – If there are fewer than two outs and first base is occupied, the ball is dead and all runners return, unless the runner(s) are stealing on the pitch.

[IndySooner]

Rule 7- Batting
Batter is out when...
f. 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;
PENALTY for f.—The runner(s) return to the base occupied at the time
of interference.
Exceptions—
A.R. 1--If, while attempting to advance to first base, the batter-runner intentionally deflects the ball, the batter-runner is declared out, the ball is dead and all runners
return.
A.R. 2--If, while attempting to advance to first base, the batter-runner unintentionally deflects the ball, the ball is live and in play.
Exception – If there are fewer than two outs and first base is occupied, the ball is dead and all runners return, unless the runner(s) are stealing on the pitch.

None of this applies. The batter is a runner automatically at ball four. There just flat out isn't anything in the rulebook that specifically addresses the situation, because it never happens. That said, the closest I can find is combining Rule 8, Sec. 2 and Rule 8, Sec. 3.

[northspeter]

a.r. 2 doesnt apply to the interference rule?

[IndySooner]

a.r. 2 doesnt apply to the interference rule?

No because he didn't touch the ball.

[BlackwellSooner]

IndySooner is correct. The instant that ball 4 was called, the batter is no longer considered a "batter", instead his status is now a "base-runner", and as such, he has the right to proceed to first base, per rule book.

What is getting overlooked here, however, is that the batter did NOT interfere with the catcher's throw, even if you disregard the fact that he is no longer a "batter".

LOOK AT THE VIDEO! The batter (he's right-handed), takes ball 4, but he does not leave the right-handed batter's box, and does NOT step into the trajectory of the catcher's throw UNTIL AFTER the catcher's throw is already on the way to second!

Therefore, no batter's interference on TWO counts: first, he didn't interfere; second, per rule, he was a base-runner, so he could not have interfered as a "batter"!

That umpire should be reamed over the coals for buying Augie's histrionics!

Home cooking at its' finest....

[bcolston15]

Batters and runners can cause interference. It makes no difference whether he was a runner or a batter.

[SoonerBorn68]

...and it's all a moot point because once ball 4 is called the runners are entitled to their bases.

The only place I can see this rule be applied is if there was a runner on third who was not entitled to advance & the catcher threw down for a pick off.

It was home cookin' plain & simple. That umpire, Scott Cline, influenced the game & is a disgrace to the integrity of the game.

[IndySooner]

Batters and runners can cause interference. It makes no difference whether he was a runner or a batter.

Yes, but the enforcement of the rule is changed. Once he's a runner, the "entitled" base rule comes into play. The runner is on second, and the batter, who has now become a runner, is out.

[IndySooner]

IndySooner is correct. The instant that ball 4 was called, the batter is no longer considered a "batter", instead his status is now a "base-runner", and as such, he has the right to proceed to first base, per rule book.

What is getting overlooked here, however, is that the batter did NOT interfere with the catcher's throw, even if you disregard the fact that he is no longer a "batter".

LOOK AT THE VIDEO! The batter (he's right-handed), takes ball 4, but he does not leave the right-handed batter's box, and does NOT step into the trajectory of the catcher's throw UNTIL AFTER the catcher's throw is already on the way to second!

Therefore, no batter's interference on TWO counts: first, he didn't interfere; second, per rule, he was a base-runner, so he could not have interfered as a "batter"!

That umpire should be reamed over the coals for buying Augie's histrionics!

Home cooking at its' finest....

No doubt about it. There was no interference, but since that's a judgment call, we have to argue the part that isn't a judgment call and he got that part wrong, too.