The worst call I have ever seen in College World Series. The runner never left the base path. The runner was also 9+ feet from the bag. How the heck can you slide to the bag that far away?!?! Pitiful call.
Are These CWS Announcers Going to Keep Crying....
5,603 Views |
58 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by ColoradoMooseHerd
I am going to defer to the obviously more knowledgeable posters on here about the interference call. It just seemed that every close or questionable call went the Hogs way. And I really did not care who won. I hate Hog fans, pull for the SEC usually, and dislike the OSU pitcher last night.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
The rule is not a "must slide" rule.
rule 8-4-a Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The runner was too far away from the base to slide. He gave himself up and ducked to get out of the way of the throw. The double clutch was because no one was on the bag.
The biggest problem is not allowing the run to score. I know that's the rule, but they need to change the rule to allow the runner from third to score in that situation.
rule 8-4-a Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The runner was too far away from the base to slide. He gave himself up and ducked to get out of the way of the throw. The double clutch was because no one was on the bag.
The biggest problem is not allowing the run to score. I know that's the rule, but they need to change the rule to allow the runner from third to score in that situation.
He ducked but he continued moving directly toward the fielder as opposed to running in a direction away from the fielder.VegasAg86 said:
The rule is not a "must slide" rule.
rule 8-4-a Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The runner was too far away from the base to slide. He gave himself up and ducked to get out of the way of the throw. The double clutch was because no one was on the bag.
The shortstop was moving across the bag from the 3rd base side. The runner moved toward the 3rd base side, expecting the SS to continue across the bag and put him out of the way. The SS stopped on the bag and moved towards 3rd, putting the runner in his way. I don't like the call.nereus said:He ducked but he continued moving directly toward the fielder as opposed to running in a direction away from the fielder.VegasAg86 said:
The rule is not a "must slide" rule.
rule 8-4-a Exception - A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder. Interference shall not be called.
The runner was too far away from the base to slide. He gave himself up and ducked to get out of the way of the throw. The double clutch was because no one was on the bag.
I do not care how bad hog fans are, i will not root against their players. They are trying to win a title. Oregon State had a guy thrown out at second trying to stretch a single. Their second baseman juggled a routine ground ball like a circus clown with the bases loaded. Their pitchers lost their minds and walked too many. And i thought early in the game the beaver pitcher got some calls. If the interference call blew the Beavers out of the water then maybe they should be mentally tougher. That is what i would tell my team.
If you cause interference the play should stop. To easy to game the system
Umpires have discretion to place runners in some situations. I think they should have it here, too. Pretty easy to not award the base if they feel a gaming of the system.Tex100 said:
If you cause interference the play should stop. To easy to game the system
They did it in the 4th inning with the other missed call that cost Oregon St a run.VegasAg86 said:Umpires have discretion to place runners in some situations. I think they should have it here, too. Pretty easy to not award the base if they feel a gaming of the system.Tex100 said:
If you cause interference the play should stop. To easy to game the system
On the interference play Arkansas had already conceded the run by choosing to throw to 2nd base. There is no gaming the system. It's common bleeping sense that the run should count regardless of the judgement call on the runner.
Sorry, that would be a bad rule to me. Needs to be universal results, not something as subjective as that.VegasAg86 said:Umpires have discretion to place runners in some situations. I think they should have it here, too. Pretty easy to not award the base if they feel a gaming of the system.Tex100 said:
If you cause interference the play should stop. To easy to game the system
Did the runner bear hug the 1B to prevent him from throwing home or was he inadvertently in his way?
1B going to second on this play was clearly a concession of the run to turn two. That's far less subjective than the interference call.Tex100 said:Sorry, that would be a bad rule to me. Needs to be universal results, not something as subjective as that.VegasAg86 said:Umpires have discretion to place runners in some situations. I think they should have it here, too. Pretty easy to not award the base if they feel a gaming of the system.Tex100 said:
If you cause interference the play should stop. To easy to game the system
Did the runner bear hug the 1B to prevent him from throwing home or was he inadvertently in his way?
I'm okay with changing the rule to let the runner score (it is clear to me he would have scored without the interference in this situation), but you do open up more issues with runner's interference and the awarding of base runners in slightly different situations when their is interference. If you are changing the rules, you have to think of how it would apply to other situations of interference where there is a question about if a non-affected runner would have advanced a base.
I think you can make a good argument that it would be a better system if the umpires used their judgement to ensure runners advance to a base where they would have almost certainly advanced otherwise as opposed to the current system.
Of course that is exactly what happened with the fair/foul ball replay and you have a bunch of people complaining about how Oregon State should have been awarded home on that play. Even though by calling it foul and then scoring the runner, the umpire would have taken away the opportunity for the right fielder to throw him out at the plate. With the way the ball bounces off the curve in the fence (which we saw again later in the game where the batter was thrown out at second), it isn't unrealistic that a good throw could have got him at home. I think Oregon State probably got the bad end of that play as I think it would have taken a great throw (but if it had been called fair it is possible Arkansas actually gets an out there).
I think you can make a good argument that it would be a better system if the umpires used their judgement to ensure runners advance to a base where they would have almost certainly advanced otherwise as opposed to the current system.
Of course that is exactly what happened with the fair/foul ball replay and you have a bunch of people complaining about how Oregon State should have been awarded home on that play. Even though by calling it foul and then scoring the runner, the umpire would have taken away the opportunity for the right fielder to throw him out at the plate. With the way the ball bounces off the curve in the fence (which we saw again later in the game where the batter was thrown out at second), it isn't unrealistic that a good throw could have got him at home. I think Oregon State probably got the bad end of that play as I think it would have taken a great throw (but if it had been called fair it is possible Arkansas actually gets an out there).
Loved the story about the coworker, yes, I guess it did impact workplace dynamic.
I wasn't the SS, I don't remember him ever hitting anybody, but I did see a few runners hit the dirt 30 feet from 2B.
RR
I wasn't the SS, I don't remember him ever hitting anybody, but I did see a few runners hit the dirt 30 feet from 2B.
RR
If you create the interference, the play should stop at that time. If you hold in football, the touchdown comes back.
Guy that used to coach my son played in the Dodgers organization in the 80's/90's. He said a hard slide into second guaranteed a low throw the next time that player advanced from 1st to 2nd.MMantle said:
Loved the story about the coworker, yes, I guess it did impact workplace dynamic.
I wasn't the SS, I don't remember him ever hitting anybody, but I did see a few runners hit the dirt 30 feet from 2B.
RR
Who are these announcers?
Another terrible call.
Actually, it was the right call. The umps aren't out to get Oregon State. And I'm quickly losing respect for Casey, if you act like a victim, you'll be a victim. His attitude is felt in the dugout and is poor coaching.Belton Ag said:
Another terrible call.
Ball didn't touch the batter. I didn't say the umps were "out to get" Oregon State. If it was us, I'd be happy with Rob challenging umpires over poor calls.RGLAG85 said:Actually, it was the right call. The umps aren't out to get Oregon State. And I'm quickly losing respect for Casey, if you act like a victim, you'll be a victim. His attitude is felt in the dugout and is poor coaching.Belton Ag said:
Another terrible call.
Ball hit his back foot. Don't know what you were watching. He tried to hop it with his front leg, hence the bent knee they thought was him sticking it out and it caught his back foot.Belton Ag said:Ball didn't touch the batter. I didn't say the umps were "out to get" Oregon State. If it was us, I'd be happy with Rob challenging umpires over poor calls.RGLAG85 said:Actually, it was the right call. The umps aren't out to get Oregon State. And I'm quickly losing respect for Casey, if you act like a victim, you'll be a victim. His attitude is felt in the dugout and is poor coaching.Belton Ag said:
Another terrible call.
dermdoc said:Biggame12 said:dermdoc said:
Maybe because Oregon State got screwed several times by calls? And I know SEC whatever, but Arkansas fans are insufferable.
I didn't see them get screwed at all. The College rule says you have to slide and he didn't so he's out. Not even a question
I saw every Ag game played this year except for some midweek games and watch a ton of college baseball on tv. Have seen a lot of runners going into second without sliding and interference was never called. And you do it in the finals of the CWS? Maybe it is just me.
Have you seen it called for that before?
Last year against LSU in the finals against Florida at CWS.
Gig Em Ags, God Bless Old Army and Marching in Behind the Band! Whooooopppp
I thought the interference call was correct. It's very black and white.
"On a force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases.
Exception: A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder."
Having watched baseball for a long time and never seeing it called doesn't mean it's the wrong call. You could watch baseball for a long time and never see someone go into second on a force play without sliding or peeling off. You'll even sometimes see a runner slide really early and end up ten feet short of the bag. The real question that should be asked is what Rutschmann was thinking. He might not have known if the ball got through or not, but interference can very much be unintentional.
Did he:
A.) Slide?
B.) Run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder?
C.) Neither
C is the answer, thus interference is called, and no runner can advance from base occupied at time of pitch when there is interference called.
"On a force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases.
Exception: A runner need not slide directly into a base as long as the runner slides or runs in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder."
Having watched baseball for a long time and never seeing it called doesn't mean it's the wrong call. You could watch baseball for a long time and never see someone go into second on a force play without sliding or peeling off. You'll even sometimes see a runner slide really early and end up ten feet short of the bag. The real question that should be asked is what Rutschmann was thinking. He might not have known if the ball got through or not, but interference can very much be unintentional.
Did he:
A.) Slide?
B.) Run in a direction away from the fielder to avoid making contact or altering the play of the fielder?
C.) Neither
C is the answer, thus interference is called, and no runner can advance from base occupied at time of pitch when there is interference called.
Quote:
SS held up because no one was covering 1st base yet.
I thought about this, but realized college level shortstops don't do that. If there was someone anywhere NEAR the bag, they throw it and expect the person to catch it. Heck, I played softball with a lot of juco/small college baseball players who did this -- on a smaller field. If he clutched it was because of the runner, and that's what the 2B umpire saw. It was a reasonable call. The announcers and TV watchers saw the entire sequence and ASSUMED it was the confusion at first that cause it, but I honestly don't think that's the case.
It was definitely the correct call. You may not like it, but it was the correct call. Just watch the replay again, the runner ducks but continues to move forward towards the SS. If he slid or veered right or left, would have been no call. They will probably use this video to explain interference in the future.
Definitely Interference by the rule
Definitely Interference by the rule
JW
Interesting betting lines for futures for A&M football as of April 2024
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
24