Terrible call. The 3rd base umpire had the call and called no interference. There was no contact between the baserunner and the shortstop. The player making the play on the hit was the third base player and the runner may have taken a small move to their right but did nothing to interfer with the shortstop coming into field the ball after the 3rd base player missed it. The commentator was out of line.
what is interesting is that this is the umpire at 3rds call generally - and he actually signals a SAFE mechanic to signal NO interference occurred (whether interfering by the batted ball touching R2, or interfering with the SS making a play on the ball - both are the same call). It would have been interesting to be the fly on the wall / jacket in that umpire conference on field to hear what made U3 change their opinion on the play from 2 other umpires who were further from the play. Now, when it comes to the rule itself, there CAN be interference if the runner impedes the SS in being able to make a play on the ball - again, that is a pure judgement call, but generally you see that with a runner who pauses in front of the fielder, or straddles the ball, or hops over the ball making the fielder's job harder; here I don't see that, I see a SS who just made a bad play on the ball. This call is one of the more misunderstood rules though to be fair - most people think the runner has their right-of-way to run on their base-line whenever they want; and that just isn't true. In this case, the fielder gets the right of way and the runner may have to deviate by running around behind the fielder, or make a loop in front of the fielder to avoid interfering.
Two things: Great call by the crew. They knew EXACTLY what was going on. That pop up was not able to be caught with ordinary effort. This would not have happened if the UNC batter would have driven the ball and not hit a dinky, weak pop up.
As a Rules Interpreter, I see nothing wrong here. The runner made a typical softball act in running directly to the next base on the batted ground ball. At no time did she force the fielder to alter her path to the ball or did she force the fielder to hesitate in her act of attempting to field the ball. While I like that the umpires got together and discussed the play when the coach for Duke questioned the call, I am at a loss to see how they could have reversed the call based on that discussion.
I agree fully... both are doing what they are supposed to... the fielder didn't even flinch due to the runners position and the runner has the rights to run the bases too... in this case, the ball is a slow roller and the fielder would have had to make a great play to come up with it and get the out at first and that's what she tried to do.. and in doing so, didn't get in front of the ball... I would not have been surprised if the runner stayed at second if the ball still doesn't end up in LF... Poor call to placate a coach. Personally, she went to the wrong umpire to plead her case... 3BU would have been a better choice.
@@alanhess9306the rule shown on screen literally says the runner can be called out “it it is an obvious attempt to prevent a double play” which requires intent (you can’t ATTEMPT something without intent). If there’s no obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the call of interference just puts the runner back on 2B instead of scoring. That said, I hate how much baseball and softball try to legislate for everything. To me, a runner going directly to the next base in a straight line like this should never be illegal, but apparently those in charge of the rulebooks think I’m wrong, 🙄
@@Cirdon91 I'm referring to the runner advancing to third base. There does not need to be intent to call interference when a runner hinders a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. You are referring to an obvious attempt to break up a double play, which did not happen here. Having said that, I'm a baseball umpire and don't know softball rules that well. Why would the runner be put back on second base when interference was called? Is that really the rule? Under baseball rules, if a base runner willfully and deliberately interferes with a batted ball or a fielder in the act of fielding a batted ball with the obvious intent to break up a double play, both the runner who interfered and the batter-runner are called out.
@@alanhess9306I know you’re referring to the runner advancing to third, and I’m referring to the NCAA rule that is literally displayed on screen in the video we are commenting on: “If a base runner interferes with a fielder attempting to field a batted ball, the ball is declared dead, and each base runner must return to the last base legally touched. If the umpire determines the interference was an obvious attempt to prevent a double play, the runner can be called out.”
@@Cirdon91 If there is interference somebody is out. Every time. The runner going from 2nd to 3rd is called for interference and will not be put back on 2nd base. The batter in this case will go to first base. Because the batter advanced to 1st, if there had been a runner on 1st they would've advanced to 2nd because they were forced to. If there had been a runner on 3rd, if the interference had occurred before that runner had scored then she would be put back on third. And intent has zero effect on whether interference is called. Just like the other commenter tried to explain, if interference is called whether it is intentional or not, the runner who interfered is out and if they hindered the opportunity for a double play then the batter-runner can be called out.
Sick goal, but he played the body on the d man twice resulting in being caught and leaving a shooter in the slot open for clear shots twice, Hard work, long shift without a stick and a great goal. But he should have cause a goal against by making bad decisions. The d man’s job is to draw him out. He went every time. Last thing he should be doing is playing the body after the puck is gone. Extremely lucky the Marksman power play was terrible.
John Brammer is a former professional umpire. Here is a clip of him ejecting Ryne Sandberg with the Triple A Iowa Cubs: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lRiX-UqbLN8.html
Not only doesn't the announcer know the rule regarding IFF, but he doesn't even know what the manager is arguing about. If you read the manager's lips, he is saying that it should have been ruled an "intentionally dropped" ball, which he has a legitimate case for. Had the umpires ruled the ball was intentionally dropped, the BR would be out and the ball would be immediately dead, so runners would return to 1st and 2nd (no DP).
Looking at the position of the fielder’s glove makes me think he swatted the ball down to the ground. It’s illegal and an attempt to gain an unfair advantage. Immediate dead ball, batter out, return all runners back to time of pitch base. I watched the video with no audio. Plate umpire Jeff Hendrix is a quality person. He and I searched for an umpire’s wallet at the end of a three day training camp. He didn’t have to do it. Umpire placed his wallet on top of his roof while he loaded his car, and then drove off. We never found the wallet. Impressive when a division 1 umpire is looking in bushes for the wallet of someone he doesn’t know. Jeff is a great umpire and a great man. I’m watching on a phone so the screen is small. I’ll watch later on a big screen T.V. Appears to be a blown call but I could be wrong. Head coach knows it’s not an infield fly. Ball must be allowed to drop to the ground before it’s touched unless you are going to actually try to catch the fly ball. Looks like an intentionally dropped fly ball.
The play by play guy is an idiot. Has nothing to do with how high the ball is. The secondbaseman had to slide to get to the ball. NOT an infield fly. It was not "ordinary effort."
The runner on 2nd should have stayed on base, either way (if the infield fly rule was called or not). The ball was thrown back to 2nd first...so there was no force play at 3rd (and he was tagged out). Even if the infield fly rule was called...stay on 2nd. Right?
Looks to me that the fielder missed this pop up ON PURPOSE. Whether or not it is ruled an infield fly DOES make a difference. If ruled an infield fly, batter is out, and the runner running to 3rd is also out on the tag. There would be NO force at 2nd base. However, if the umpire DID NOT call an infield fly, BUT he DID rule that the fielder flubbed the catch, on purpose, batter is OUT and all runners are returned to the base they were occupying at the time of the pitch.
This was a good no call by the crew. You can see the third base umpire look to his crewmates when the coach started pleading for the infield fly rule to be invoked, and he shakes his head. It's like another umpire asked him if he had infield fly. If you look at the camera angle from the press box, where you can see the entire diamond while the ball is in the air, none of the umpires indicates infield fly. Additional analysis of the video tells me that it would have been a double play in any case. If an infield fly had been called, the batter would have been out and the runner going from second to third would have still been out on the tag. The umpires were very patient with the coach. But once he ran the stop sign, he had to go.
If infield fly was called dude the runner wouldn’t have been running from 2nd to 3rd. The only reason he left the base and ran was bc the umpires didn’t call the infield fly therefore he was “forced” to take 3rs
The rulebook definition of Infield Fly says the umpire "shall immediately declare 'Infield Fly' for the benefit of the runners." However, sometimes they do not. As in the 2008 World Series game, there may be doubt as to whether the ball was catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort. Google is a beast. It does have to be announced. Not being a smartass, just educating folks. I am wrong also sometimes.
@@gcA158 your attitude is great, and you are right. What if you just aren’t sure until very late? It’s a problem. Doesn’t happen often. Also, wind is a mitigating factor, but sun is not. It’s an infield fly whether you forgot your sunglasses or not.
By the second baseman, correct. However, the pitcher could have gotten to it with little to no effort. The pitcher is a fielder after the ball is thrown towards home plate. Also, the reason it looked like non-ordinary effort was because the second baseman broke to the ball late and was moving away from the direction the ball was hit. We have to look at the whole big picture here.
@@gcA158 I am looking at the big picture. No way that ordinary effort for a pitcher. And a pitcher is an infielder with the responsibility of delivering a pitch to a batter. There are three outs and six infielders. Both catcher and pitcher are infielders. As Casey Stengel said,” You can look it up.
NCAA definition: A fair fly ball (not including a line drive or an attempted bunt) that can be caught by an infielder *with ordinary effort*, when first and second or first, second and third bases are occupied before two are out. (Emphasis mine)
@@strongestnattyever-videos2247eh I mean you could make that argument. It says with ordinary effort. If he played it correctly he could have made it a lot easier. So in your case you could say a player misplaying an ordinary fly ball could negate an infield fly rule? I just can’t get behind that.
@@lscales6131 its just a matter of whether or not you considered the fielder made an "ordinary effort". That is a pure judgement call. Not sure how deep the fielder was playing but I personally think that if the fielder was set up under the pop fly and just waiting for the ball to get there I would consider it "ordinary effort" but because he had to B line it over to make the play I would not consider it "ordinary effort" again its a pure judgement call though. Hope I was not confusing.
The only player who could have caught the ball with ordinary effort was the pitcher, who is not considered an infielder. I can see why the umps made this call (though for me it's still an infield fly).
Actually the infielder that could have caught the ball with ordinary effort does not have to be the one who attempted it. So the Pitcher could have caught it or had the second baseman broke immediately he could have. The umpire blew it and the fact that the crew gave the coach so much leeway before tossing him shows they knew they blew it. But eventually they had no choice but to toss him. The rule is pretty easy and the reaction of the crew is pretty conclusive.......
@@GibsonsOfNewBern you are incredibly wrong. Plate umpire Jeff Hendrix didn’t want to eject the head coach from an important game. The importance of the game is taken into consideration. What is conclusive is you are ignorant.
@@humdinger7723 Still scratching my head on that one. ESPN and Tennessee have never had a good relationship. Ex Arkansas player, Eklund, not very bright!!
@@QuiltHoncho I believe you are right. Haven’t watched on a big screen yet. One of my favorite words is “ bullshit.” Check out the George Carlin bit on All American bullshit. He says some people are stunningly full of bullshit. People who are simultaneously adamant and ignorant suck. I could be wrong, but I think Jeff and his crew got this wrong. Then again, who am I to judge one of the best division one umpires in America? My evidence is the angle of F-4’s glove. If you are going to catch a fly ball your glove is not in the position he had his glove in.
@@johnmerritt6670 you are on the wrong site. We are trying to become better umpires and learn rules. All baseball fans should care if the call was vorrdct.
A key part to the rule that most people forget is "routine or ordinary effort". A head first dive is not ordinary effort and negates the IFF. Correct no call by this crew.
@@LiquidLuke you must be living in an alternate testify. Pitcher has his momentum going forward and would need to come down off the mound and catch a fly ball behind him. Not ordinary effort.
@@rayray4192 agreed ray........this was not an IFF(not high enough and not ordinary effort to catch it) , however the argument could be made for an intentional dropped ball. But, I hate the IFF Rule and love that a double play happened here. Never really understood why the rules were changed just to "protect" baserunners. Outs are good
It's the NCAA rulebook written by coaches. I was umpiring the first two seasons the coaches decided to implement their own rulebook. They wrote some of the most idiotic, counter-intuitive rules ever.
Those of you saying this is a terrible call, the rule was changed in 2018. The fielder cannot block the path to the base/plate without the ball. If the fielder does so, it is obstruction, whether the ball gets there before the runner or not.
Terrible call by this umpire. As an umpire with 20 years+ of experience, this is NOT the intent of the OBS rule. The runner was 5+ feet away from the plate at the time the catcher got the ball. The runner, from her position, outside of the foul line, established a path to home that is NOT obstructed by the catcher's position prior to getting the ball.
