Highlands 3 Newport Central Catholic 2

Page 2 of Final from Highland Park. Great pitchers duel between Joe Martin and Grant Moeves who both threw conplete games. NCC scored both of their runs in the f... 28 comments | 2312 Views | Go to page 1 →

  1. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 15
    Posts
    1,241

    Just like the administartion did, well glad it wasn't your son.
    Advertisement

  2. #17

    Join Date
    May 13
    Posts
    1,521


  3. #18

    Join Date
    May 13
    Posts
    1,521

    Quote Originally Posted by raiderbird View Post
    This is what happened on that play. Venneman on 1st and Hennigan at the plate. Venneman steals and Hennigan lays down a bunt right down the first baseline. Moeves fields the ball Hennigan is running straight down the white line. Moeves goes to tag Hennigan as Hennigan is running. The ball comes out of Moeves glove and hits the ground. The umpire calls interference on Hennigan which it was not. Hennigan let Moeves field the ball and Moeves dropped it when he was tagging Hennigan. Hennigan should of been on 1st and Venneman on 3rd. There was no interference!!
    Someone from HHS mounts a contour camera on the backstop. (It's a better GoPro for those that don't know what it is).
    I'd be interested in seeing the footage of that play.

  4. #19
    THUNDERBIRDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 08
    Location
    Keeping the S.C.I.T. in check...
    Posts
    4,014

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    The call was interference on the runner against a fielder attempting to make a play. By rule, that runner (in this case the batter) is out and runners return to the base they were on at the time of the pitch.
    So was that the right call? If it indeed was deemed Interference by the Runner then I agree but Raiderbird says otherwise. Can anybody outside of Highlands or NewCath tell us if it was the right call or not? I wasn't there so I have no clue! I was at home checking for Line Breaks in my Dog fence.

  5. #20

    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,223

    Quote Originally Posted by THUNDERBIRDS View Post
    So was that the right call? If it indeed was deemed Interference by the Runner then I agree but Raiderbird says otherwise. Can anybody outside of Highlands or NewCath tell us if it was the right call or not? I wasn't there so I have no clue! I was at home checking for Line Breaks in my Dog fence.

    I wasn't there. I didn't see the play. I'm just saying that based on the call made the rule was enforced correctly.

    The debate centers around timing. Did the contact with the fielder happen before or after the fielder had possession of the ball?

  6. #21
    Qryche11's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 06
    Location
    Fort Thomas
    Posts
    24,524


  7. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 13
    Posts
    263

    I think it was a bad call. That ump made some bad calls on both teams. IMO

  8. #23

    Join Date
    May 13
    Posts
    1,521

    Quote Originally Posted by HeGotGame View Post
    I think it was a bad call. That ump made some bad calls on both teams. IMO
    I couldn't say on this one. But I do agree that the home ump had some serious issues last night. VERY inconsistent strike zone. The only thing consistent was that he was inconsistent towards both teams.

  9. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 03
    Location
    Have love in your heart and an ax in your hand. Hug and swing discriminately- Jim Wendler
    Posts
    15,357

    Quote Originally Posted by THUNDERBIRDS View Post
    So was that the right call? If it indeed was deemed Interference by the Runner then I agree but Raiderbird says otherwise. Can anybody outside of Highlands or NewCath tell us if it was the right call or not? I wasn't there so I have no clue! I was at home checking for Line Breaks in my Dog fence.
    If you need help, IM me. I got a guy that will find that break in life 15 minutes.

  10. #25

    Join Date
    Sep 05
    Location
    In enemy territory scouting for the future..
    Posts
    10,311

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    I wasn't there. I didn't see the play. I'm just saying that based on the call made the rule was enforced correctly.

    The debate centers around timing. Did the contact with the fielder happen before or after the fielder had possession of the ball?
    After possession. I think the pitcher tried to tag and then turn to throw to third to get Venneman.

  11. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 15
    Posts
    76

    It was hard to see from the angle I had. If he just simply lost the ball then the runner should have been safe at first. But if the runner purposely kicked the ball or knocked it out of the pitchers hand then he would be out. I couldn't really tell though. Tough angle for me.

  12. #27

    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    The City of Beautiful Homes
    Posts
    2,425

    Clyde -- is there any intent required for interference on the batter? If batter runner simply runs to 1B and neither intends to make contact with the fielder NOR seeks to get out of the way of the fielder, is that interference? Does it matter if the batter runner was in fair / foul ground?

  13. #28

    Join Date
    May 08
    Posts
    91,223

    Quote Originally Posted by jpa2825 View Post
    Clyde -- is there any intent required for interference on the batter? If batter runner simply runs to 1B and neither intends to make contact with the fielder NOR seeks to get out of the way of the fielder, is that interference? Does it matter if the batter runner was in fair / foul ground?
    Intent does not factor in.

    Fair/foul does not factor in.

  14. #29

    Join Date
    Nov 03
    Location
    The City of Beautiful Homes
    Posts
    2,425

    Quote Originally Posted by Clyde View Post
    Intent does not factor in.

    Fair/foul does not factor in.
    So fielder should strategically seek contact on such a play? Puts the runner back to 1B rather than fielding cleanly & throwing batter runner out and allowing runner to advance 1 or 2 bases.

    Presume that if it is obvious that fielder initiated conduct, it is not interference and could be construed as obstruction, right?

Top