Ever Seen This Call?

Wow, I have no idea what the rule is in that case, but that seems like a pretty big assumption.  Needs a good throw to second then a good throw to first.  I've seen it plenty when a guy takes out the 2B or SS trying to break up a double play, but that's a little more clear cut as one of the outs is already made and you can usually tell if a throw would have gotten the guy at first

"Wow" summarizes the printable thoughts of the coaches (and parents) of the (eventual losing) visitors.

This is similar to a discussion that was just had:

http://community.hsbaseballweb...80#45220382462582580

In the threads case it was the runner at second called out for an illegal slide, but still, the same principle applies.  The runner interfered...so it is an IF-THEN scenario.  Could he have made the double play doesn't matter both are out because IF there is illegal contact THEN both players are out.

In NCAA, in a situation involving a batter-runner and a catcher fielding a ball, there has to be intent to interfere (batter) or obstruct (catcher) for this to be illegal. This was the question for the first rules quiz of the year this season.

Matt13 posted:

In NCAA, in a situation involving a batter-runner and a catcher fielding a ball, there has to be intent to interfere (batter) or obstruct (catcher) for this to be illegal. This was the question for the first rules quiz of the year this season.

Matt, 

Thanks, I knew the MLB saw it that way based on the 1975 WS, but didn't know what NCAA's rules say about it.

Fed does not offer batters the same protection, does it?

Do you think the hesitation and late start might have supported the intent ruling?

Ed Armbrister, Reds, 1975 World Series vs. Red Sox.

Check it out - Did it look like that?

I guess the "interference" was similar to that (the catcher never made or attempted a throw to second though).

Swampboy posted:

Matt13 posted:

In NCAA, in a situation involving a batter-runner and a catcher fielding a ball, there has to be intent to interfere (batter) or obstruct (catcher) for this to be illegal. This was the question for the first rules quiz of the year this season.

Matt, 

Thanks, I knew the MLB saw it that way based on the 1975 WS, but didn't know what NCAA's rules say about it.

Fed does not offer batters the same protection, does it?

Do you think the hesitation and late start might have supported the intent ruling?

Ironically, the hesitation may support a ruling of interference by the batter in OBR, because the standard for protection is that the hindrance occurs immediately.

Given that the video question on the quiz was the Cueto play from a few years back (in which he hesitated thinking the ball was foul,) I would be hard-pressed that the NCAA would want us to interpret a delay or hesitation as intent.