i've been deer in headlights on this one cuz there was NO OBSTRUCTION called on the play, which is why Jacobs was called out on the play after the discussion. after reading the posts i made a call last night and talked about this with a AAA guy. what we came up with is pretty much what was posted somewhere above, so i will edit my playing god statement to correct it, and say that this would be one of the times you could play god.

if, in the discussion after the play, we had decided that there WAS obstruction on this play, then Jacobs would have been awarded 2B and the coach's assist would have been disregarded as the OBS would have taken precedence. the discussion on the phone last night pretty much culminated in the fact that because the ball went to the backstop and Jacobs was going hard with intent to go to 2B, he would be sent there as the fix to the OBS, and the coach's assist wouldn't have mattered cuz he should have already been at 2B.

thanks for keeping me in check.

http://s240.photobucket.com/albums/f..._Stream001.flv

edited to add the link in again cuz it's a new page...

So, if there's obstruction and you protect the runner to third, and he misses second base not as a direct result of the obstruction, is the runner liable to be put out on appeal?

If he is responsible for running the bases correctly (and he is), why does the obstruction in the original play excuse the coach's interference at first base?

that's what my original thinking was before talking it out last night. his point was that the runner stopped running due to being obstructed and went back to 1B. if e hadn't been obstructed, he would have kept going and there would never have been an opportunity for the int. therefore, at the conclusion of the play, he would have awarded the runner such to make it so that the obstruction was rectified, sending him to 2B. i'm going to send him the video and see what he has to say about it. it may take awhile, but i'll post when he gets back to me.

Convoluted reasoning. The ball was live as it was type B obstruction.

i don't see your point.

I see your point.

But I still agree with JM, who said above that, even though protected, the runner still must run the bases legally.

Although without the OBS the coach would not have had the opportunity to interfere, the fact is that he DID interfere during a live ball. If the runner had committed interference after the OBS, he still would have been liable to be called out.

I'll be interested to hear what the AAA guy says.

i don't disagree, as that was how i saw it. this is what came out of the conversation i had with this other guy last night. i'm going to get in touch with the pbuc rules guy and see what he has to say about it. i changed my mind, i'm not going to send it to the PBUC guy cuz i don't want it to stir up any controversy if he was unaware of it, and i'd hate to be the cause of his ranking being effected.

In my opinion, while I wouldn't want my ranking affect either...doesn't your statement negate the entire spirit of ranking in that your best officials shouldn't miss those calls and the "non-best" officials maybe would miss them? I'm not saying I would've got the call right...although I think I did as well as many other on here who chose to take a stab at this....

This is a fantastic thread again, thank you for posting...because for once instead of all of us saying "HTBT"...we are all here, we all see the call...now pipe up and offer a ruling...no matter what call you made there...there were going to be ejections which is baseball sometimes. Nice job, and again, thanks for posting the video...this one really made me think...and is a great example of type b obstruction

Bobby, i'm going to have to agree with Oz and JM on this play. INT, the majority of the time will supersede an OBS award.

The only thing I know that super cedes interference and obstruction is malicious contact. Call the obstruction and interference in the order they happen. Even if the obstruction was called in the OP, the B/R would have been out.

Hey, what am I, chopped liver? :p

It's not actually a case of "superseding," since you can enforce both. I would use the concept of "superseding" only where it was not possible to enforce both penalties, so one had to choose which to enforce.

Under the obstruction rule don't you "nullify" the act of obstruction. Without the obstruction there would have been no interference. Send'em to second.

Too many what ifs for me. It's obstruction, don't get me wrong, but once the BR went back to first he's still subject to the rules of the game. He can't intentionally interfere, for example. And a coach can't assist him.

But why did he return to first? The obstruction doesn't allow him carte blanche but did the coach's push really affect the play? Not to me (judgement) and by awarding second base I'm nullifying the act of obstruction which caused the "interference" by the coach. JMO.

It's not judgment. Did the coach assist the runner or not? THAT'S the judgment and the video makes that answer obvious. The rule doesn't require that the assist "affect the play."

You can't justify a call just by saying it's a judgment call.