Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ronald
If you remember a play from 5 years ago, you might agree with WMB.
The play happened in a girls FP national where there was catcher obstruction with the ball being hit to the SS who was interfered by a runner advancing from 2B to 3B. Ruling by phone from Bob Savoie was--interference superseded, canceled or whatever you wants to call it, obstruction by f2.
Seems like we have the same principle here-two competing violations. One has to be the top dog.
A) out. inning over. (Follows the logic of Bob Savoies' ruling)
Or
B) Option to the coach and advance the runners and a ball to batter or out and inning over
C) 10.1 Plate umpire decides cause ain't nothing in the rules to specifically cover a double violation detailed in the OP. You could sell this as you all make big bucks 
But there is the precedence for interference supersedes obstruction. so, lbr violation cancels ip.
Guess you could marshal arguments for both sides. What do the head honchos in OK City say? That is all that matters. I say they opt for A as has WMB. |
Not comparable. And you cannot use Rule 10 for everything, especially when it is specifically addressed in 8.5.B.Effect.Note2 which states that an interference violation takes precedence over ANY obstruction enforcement.
In the play at hand, WMB is correct that the LBR effects a "no pitch". However, I think there could be an extenuating circumstance that could have caused the IP to be called and negate the LBR.