for anyone who watched the game and knows the rule, what did you think of the interference call that took away the game winning run for SHSU? I thought it was a really bad call, but I'm not exactly sure what the rule is. Having said that, it seemed clear from the high hop that TCU would never be able to turn 2 on that plat so it was kind of a bine headed decision by the runner to even give the ump the chance to make that call.
I think it was the correct call. If the runner had just started his slide a step or two earlier (as opposed to being practically right on or at the bag when the "slide" began), the result would've been different. I think the applicable rule is NCAA Rule 8, Section 4, which says that, on any force play, the runner must slide on the ground before the base and in a direct line between the two bases. "On the ground” means either a head-first slide or a slide with one leg and buttock on the ground before the base. It doesn't look to me like he was "on the ground."
I would agree he seemed to slide really late. In that case, SHSU has no one to blame but themselves. They had the game won and blew it with a bone head running mistake. We probably cost ourselves 2-3 runs last night with bad base running and execution, but still managed to pull out the win. Can't ask for anymore effort and grit from our guys than they showed last night. I just hope they run the bases a little smarter.
I understand the call, but the one thing that keeps going through my mind is that the slide had no bearing on the outcome of the play. TCU was not going to be able to complete a double play, not even close. I could see if the slide would have prevented the completion of a double play, but it didn't.
Think if it this way, you have a power sweep to the right that goes for a TD however the WR on the left clearly holds his man, in fact tackles him. That man probably had no chance to tackle the RB so you don't throw a flag? As someone has stated, it was a bad mistake that cost him & his team.
Yes, but this is baseball and the only area of interest or violation is at the scene of the supposed crime. This is strictly an interpretation of a rule with no room for descretion. For years the neighborhood play at second on a force in rout to a double play was widely accepted without much question. That was clearly against the rules. The same goes with a throw beating a runner to a bag or plate and though the tag isn't there or applied high, while the foot gets in, the great percentage of the time the call is out. I think the interpretation of the rule should be revisited with some room for the umpire's descretion to be used as to circumstance.
