|
Okay, my turn.
First off, I find it hard to believe an umpire on this board referred to this as "catcher's interference".
I don't think this is such a far stretch to understand the instructor's interpretation. Merle may come back with something else, but let's remember one thing-obstruction only protects the person offended and those affected by it.
The runner's interference was not a result of the obstruction.
My call would be to kill the play when the INT occurred. Rule R1 out on the INT (as it was a rules violation independent of the CO). If intentional, R1 would also be gone. Since the runners were forced to evacuate their bases by the batted ball, R2 will not be ruled out at 2B even if INT was intentional. Since the options bring about identical results, R2 would be placed on 2B and the batter on 1B.
__________________
The bat issue in softball is as much about liability, insurance and litigation as it is about competition, inflated egos and softball.
|