All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by First Bank & Trust Company

HolidayInnHokie HolidayInnHokie OP
Mar 13, 2026 at 10:47 PM ET
When we argued for the “interference” based on a fake tag by the Duke 2B
why the hell didn’t they review it? As someone noted below, fake tags are illegal and considered a form of interference. If one of the umps didn’t see it in real time, but the video replays we could see are pretty obvious and Pete/Mike were insistent that it happened, why not take a look?

5 Replies

MDHokie79 MDHokie79
4mo
If intentional that was a very tacky little league move!
N
nkhooch
4mo
I understand the penalty for that is a warning to the fielder. While
that warning would have been appropriate we would not have gained anything if that had happened.
VTChip VTChip
4mo
I believe that is considered obstruction
Direct from the NCAA softball rule book Fielder Obstruction. 5 A fielder shall not fake a tag on a runner advancing or returning to a base� A fake tag occurs when a fielder, not in possession of the ball, pretends to have the ball and simulates a tag, which causes the runner to slow down or stop I believe that would have moved the runner to third base and IF everything turns out the same, she would have scored on the next play which was he error by the second baseman.
N
nkhooch
4mo
Ok, then the info I got was incorrect. Thought it was a reliable source.
Thanks for the clarification. ** Edited by nkhooch at 3/15/2026, 2:13:03 AM
V
VAHokie89
4mo
Likely because Pete didn't argue heavily. He was likely fishing
Pete did not look insistent on TV. He looked like he presented a case, the umps talked about it, and Peter nicely went back to the dugout. THere was no challenge. He could have challenged it right?