- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: We got a Break on the Interference Call
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:00 pm to graychef
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:00 pm to graychef
quote:
According to the umpire it was. His call.
So you are saying that he can't be wrong because that's what he called? Even if you are saying it's a judgement call can his judgement not be wrong? I'll have to take this as you have never seen an ump make a bad judgement call since that's what he called and it's his call.
1
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:01 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
yes it clearly was at the time of impact
I guess the laws of physics don't exist in your world? He was on a dead sprint in the complete opposite direction.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:01 pm to LeagueCityTiger
quote:
He was running at full speed one way and kicked the ball in the complete OPPOSITE direction.
As long as the ball is within reasonable reach it doesn't matter if its going up, down, backwards, forwards,(or how fast) or any which way relative to the fielder, and at the TIME of impact the ball was within reach. At least according to the umpire. And that's all that matters.
I try to remove the homerism when looking at close plays objectively. But after reading the rules and seeing it several times I think the umpire had every right to call interference.
This post was edited on 3/11/11 at 11:02 pm
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:01 pm to LeagueCityTiger
You now changed your argument. Originally, once Jones touched the ball, interference cannot be called. Now your argument is that the ball was kicked too far away for interference to be called. C'mon, coach.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:03 pm to Kal_Varnsen
In real time, he interpreted the rules how he sees fit. It wasn't a blatant miss, like a play at a base would be. He interprets the rules. We have the fortune of watching YouTube multiple times. He saw it once.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:04 pm to xXLSUXx
Go outside and run forward bending over and kick a ball backwards and see how many times you can pick it up without stopping and turning around. Try as many times as you like and come back and tell me how long it took for you to do it.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:04 pm to LeagueCityTiger
they are going to call that interference 100% of the time in college baseball. The runner hindered his ability to field the ball IMO
This post was edited on 3/11/11 at 11:05 pm
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:05 pm to Kal_Varnsen
quote:
Go outside and run forward bending over and kick a ball backwards and see how many times you can pick it up without stopping and turning around. Try as many times as you like and come back and tell me how long it took for you to do it.
So what is the umpire supposed to do?
Assume that the fielder doesn't have the ability to turn around and make the play???
So now we make calls based on what we "assume" the player has the ability to do?
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:06 pm to WacoTiger
quote:
If the runner had done what he was supposed to do, everyone would have been safe and Jones probably would have had his 2nd error of the game, but that did not happen
This.
Also, Jacoby probably would have fielded it cleanly. He pretty much kept his head up during the entire fielding act to see if he was going to collide. After he misplayed, he didn't attempt to field it again, but instead braced for the collision.
As I said before, even if Jacoby fielded it cleanly 95% chance that collision occurs anyway.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:06 pm to LeagueCityTiger
quote:
I guess the laws of physics don't exist in your world? He was on a dead sprint in the complete opposite direction.
if that AR 4 rule is truly a rule, then you would be right.
it was posted before i made my comments, i was only going by what AR 3 said which would make the call correct.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:06 pm to graychef
Agreed, clearly this "coach" doesn't know the NCAA rules. You are probably a high school coach, right? You said, look up the rule. I was way ahead of you and already knew and read the rule. The call was correct based upon the ball within the reach of the fielder at the time of the collision. Look at the tape again and you will see that the ball was within 18 inches of Jones at the time of the collision (I measured) and Jones has a wing span of at least 3 feet (he is over 6 feet tall). That makes it within his reach by definition, regardless of which direction the ball was traveling. I don't think you are going to win this argument because you, as the original OP, didn't know the correct rule when you made your original post. That gives you no credibility.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:06 pm to Kal_Varnsen
quote:
Go outside and run forward bending over and kick a ball backwards and see how many times you can pick it up without stopping and turning around. Try as many times as you like and come back and tell me how long it took for you to do it.
After watching the video again the ball went backwards at impact. Bang bang play on the field and you have to at least see how the call was made right?
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:07 pm to Lester Earl
the view of the ball is blocked whenever contact is made so we have no idea when the ball started moving backwards.
They will always call that interference in college
They will always call that interference in college
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:08 pm to graychef
quote:
You now changed your argument. Originally, once Jones touched the ball, interference cannot be called. Now your argument is that the ball was kicked too far away for interference to be called. C'mon, coach.
Wrong. I said once he kicked the ball. A ball that you drop, and you immediately pick up and have a REASONABLE chance to make a play on is COMPLETELY different. If someone slams into you then, then of course it's interferences. I'm talking about a true kick that you have to go get. It's very logical. Could he have slammed on the brakes at full speed, retraced and made a play if the collision did NOT occur????? Of course not. He would have been standing by the pitchers mound, the ball would have been rolling in the dirt and the everyone would have been safe. That's why it's not interference.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:10 pm to LeagueCityTiger
when contact was initiated the ball was in reach.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:12 pm to LeagueCityTiger
The collision occurred while the ball was on the way to the ground.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:12 pm to TigerBait1127
quote:
A.R. 3—If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and while attempting to recover it, the ball is in the fielder’s immediate reach and the fielder is contacted by the base runner attempting to reach a base, interference shall be called.
A.R. 4—If a fielder has a chance to field a batted ball, but misplays it and must chase after the ball, the fielder must avoid the runner. If contact occurs, obstruction shall be called.
furthermore, one could argue he wasn't in the act of chasing after the ball or reaching for the ball so these rules may not apply here.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:12 pm to xXLSUXx
quote:
Assume that the fielder doesn't have the ability to turn around and make the play???
So now we make calls based on what we "assume" the player has the ability to do?
That's the whole point. Once the player has to turn around and go get the ball he ceases to be protected. Therefore it's obstruction. If the ball is resting right underneath him it's still interference. In this case the point where the collision took place he could not physically pick up the ball.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:13 pm to LeagueCityTiger
Seriously, do you not see how any umpire would call this interference? Your opinion differs from the umpire and that doesn't necessarily mean you're right and he's wrong.
Posted on 3/11/11 at 11:15 pm to LeagueCityTiger
LSU got a big break on the play. Jacoby whiffed on the ball and then ran into the runner. The ball was headed into right field if it doesn't hit his foot (after he missed it). The runner did not interfere with the fielder. It matters not whether Jones saw the runner in his peripheral vision or not. That's NOT interference. There is no rule that says a runner has to avoid the fielder's peripheral vision. That is complete BS. If I would've been SERRANO, I would've gone apeshit and gotten tossed at that point.
This post was edited on 3/11/11 at 11:16 pm
Page 4 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News