[AtlUmpSteve]

Here's my belief about this play.

We say interference supercedes obstruction. BUT, I think we have to consider if it was the same runner; if so, THEN the obstructed runner that commits interference is out, and no longer protected.

In replaying this situation, we had an intended ruling of the lead runner being awarded home; because we believe she would have made home. It doesn't matter that she went back after being knocked down; what matters is our judgment that she would have reached home if not obstructed.

So, does the subsequent interference kill the obstruction award? I submit that you have to reconsider the timing that would have occurred absent the obstruction, if you are going to award based on "absent the obstruction". If you judge that, not only the lead runner would have scored, but would have scored BEFORE the interference, then the only fair award that negates the obstruction is to award home BEFORE the interference. And, given average runners, a runner from 2nd WOULD score before a BR would be tagged out at 2nd stretching to a double.

And, to me, that is the only fair ruling. Fix the affect of the obstruction, UNLESS the obstructed runner commits an act that supercedes THAT obstruction. But, if the obstruction caused someone to not score that should have, score the run.