Toss up? Obstruction and Interference on same play
 

B1 hits short gapper to right. R1, slower than molasses, rounds second running into an apparently oblivious F6 (obs) and continues on to 3B where throw somehow just beats him to the base. R1 does a very fumbled slide into 3B as BR, a speed burner, motors towards second. The fumbled slide goes off to the side into F5 (int) interfering with F5's ability to get a throw off to 2B and the throw just misses BR.

Ruling? Interested in finding out how many have same opinion.

Why is this interference?

Given that it is (and I'm not convinced based on the description), then R1 is awarded third on the obstruction, but is out on the interference. BR returns to first.

I'd also have to see it...interference would be a tough call here (again, I didn't see it)...but yep, that's what I'd call too...then get the offensive coach and talk to him before he blows up in your face. or not? :-)

Is the ball still live after obstructed R1 is played on at 3B?

Bob,

This is strictly theoretical. Suffice it to say that the slide hindered the throw. This is one possibility. Absent the obs - R1 makes it to 3B standing up, instead of being out. Because he is awarded 3B on the obs, he can't be called for int, unless the two events are mutually exclusive. Given that, could you not also, call out BR if you felt that there was a legitimate play?

I'm not necessarily ruling one way or the other, just trying to get a take on it.

The OBS and INT are seperate events. A runner 'protected' by OBS is not shielded against an INT call later in the play, just as the obstructed runner can be tagged out if he proceeds past his 'protected' base on his own volition.

Don't we have a dead ball the instant the obstructed runner is apparently put out? If so, there's no INT, as nothing else happened.

Not in FED.

If the two events are mutually exclusive and you call int on R1, if, in your opinion, the BR could have been thrown out at 2B absent the int, could you not also call out the BR at second. I didn't see anbody answer that.

You can call 2 IF you are certain that the INT prevented a double play. I would submit that this bar is set very, very high, however.

I agree the bar is set very high. I would guess it would depend on how obvious the situation was.

What did he do to interfere? I couldn't tell in your OP (but i dont think that's what you're mainly concerned with).

If a runner is obstructed, that doesn't mean he's immuned to interference as well. If he interferes, even before his protected base, call him out and call a DP if the situation warrants.

I have Type B obs, which becomes Type A when that runner was played upon. Call Time, enforce the Obs. BR returned to 1st.

This OBR , and possibly a Canadian interp.

"Willful and Deliberate Interference" is the key here...if you're calling Interference and the double play (in this sitch...proceed cautiously with that ruling)...In an interference situation...wouldn't the play stop right there? In OBS, since there isn't a play being made on the runner at the time of the OBS, your play doesn't stop. And if you have interference...R1 is out and BR goes back to 1st base. This is a good sitch to discuss...lots of different interpretations here...and I guess that's why the board is here!

Once he is "out" at third, call time, and "award" him third base on the obstruction. All other runners return to the last base they occupied when you called time. Now there is no interference because the ball has become dead.

The int was on R1 in his slide into 3B causing F5 to not be able to make the throw in time to catch the BR.

My issue is really whether or not the two events are independent of each other or if the obstruction has precedence over the interference. The rule book doesn't really explain what happens if you have both

It does...because I think on one...the ball becomes dead immediately...which I think is the interference so at that point you would kill the play and place the runner...either you call him out or send him back to the base last legally occupied. Interference kills the play, OBS, is ignored. This is where you have to interpret things because the rule book can't possibly have every situation that will happend in a game.

This is also the correct ruling in an OBS situation. Sorry Tex...I read your post after posting my previous post. Nice job on explaining the mechanic. A scenario similar to this is on page 49 of the PBUC manual.

Big Tex - given your scenario - when did the ball become dead? According to FED in OBS, it's a delayed dead ball and the play is not killed until all playing action has stopped, then time is called and bases awarded. See example from CB 8.3.2 Situation A

RULING: Umpire shall signal a delayed dead ball when the infraction by F5 occurs. At the conclusion of playing action, he declares the ball dead, then awards home to R1 and allows R2 to remain at third.

The play is not the same, but the mechanics of calling DDB should be. Thoughts, anyone?

Big,

If this were an OBR game then Tex has given you the proper call. What started out as type B obstruction became type A as soon as R1 was played upon. This is a dead ball and R1 is awarded third. All other runners are awarded bases, if any, that will nullify the act of obstruction.


Tim.

Defense screwed up. Don't reward them.

In the OP, no, you can't have 2 outs because there was no double play available. The lead runner was safe on the OBS, and if he then interferes with a play on the only other runner, I can't see how you can get more than one out here.

As for the OP, it is apparent that there are two differing codes regarding OBS:

1. Call DDB. Let play continue until all action is over.

2. Call DDB. Let play continue until all action is over OR the obstructed runner is put out before his/her protection is removed.

In the former, the lead runner would be out on INT and the other returned to 1B.

In the latter, the play would be killed as soon as the lead runner was 'out'. Runners would then be awarded bases. Since the ball was dead, there was no INT, so no outs.

Personally, the latter makes more sense to me.