Video

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.

Intent is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the rule.

@@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.

Ive said this for years. Why do runners need protection on a lousy popup? Double plays are fun

If he would have stayed at 2nd he would have been protected and still at 2nd!

Why you got to turn it into a race thing?.....😮

@@RDSRDSRDSReDraguns I didn't

It’s a regional game so they might host the tournament but they don’t always get home team

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.

this ^ it just fuels arm chair umpires on weekends for guys just starting out.

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

@@aaronbalakey5377 you are correct. Also, petulant children refer to others as “ dude.”

@@rayray4192 it was supposed to say “if infield fly was called HERE” idk where ‘dude’ came from…

it did look more like a bloop; not a fly ball

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.

@@gcA158 never call an infield fly until it reaches its apex. Be careful with the word “ immediately.”

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.

Right, so not an infield fly here, due to this not being an ordinary effort (he had to slide to get to it, and still couldn’t).

@@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 delusional. No way that’s ordinary effort for the pitcher. You do realize the pitcher is on a mound, right?

@@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.

And they come back to win their region yessir

You are right.

@@Panderson17 good ball club. Very good coach.

I couldn't care less about if they got it wrong or right. I'm a Tennessee fan.

@@johnmerritt6670 isn't the entire Vols team suspended for banned substances...kidding of course.

@@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.

Were you on the announcing crew?

The pitcher could have caught the ball with reasonable effort.

@@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.

@@QuiltHoncho pitcher had no chance to catch the fly ball with 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

@@mptr1783 the goal is equity. In other words not favorable rulings to the defense or offense.

Very