View Single Post
  #58 (permalink)  
Old Thu Feb 06, 2003, 10:04pm
ntxblue ntxblue is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Plano, TX
Posts: 229
Quote:
Originally posted by IRISHMAFIA
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.


Mike, you got this one nailed - as usual. Merle did discuss this play at the DFW ASA Clinic on 1/4. The ruling sounded odd at the time, but after letting it soak in, it does make sense. Even it didn't, the authorities have spoken.

Gary
Reply With Quote