Obstruction and coach's interference video

[Forest Ump]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

I would've awarded 2B here on OBS...as a baserunner, you're running to 2B to draw a throw to trade a run for an out. He would've reached 2B in my judgement, had the OBS not occurred.

Steve

[bossman72]

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.

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by bossman72

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by bossman72

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.

Hey, what am I, chopped liver?

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.

[NFump]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by NFump

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.

[NFump]

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by NFump

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.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by NFump

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.

If a runner is obstructed going to third and he slaps the ball out of F5's hand ala Arod, based on your rationale, you would not call the interference since he never would have slapped the ball out of his hands if he didn't get obstructed... hopefully you wouldn't call this

[bob jenkins]

Originally Posted by NFump

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.

If the obstruction was the proximate cause of the "interference" then I think you can ignore it. For example, Br hits a ball to the wall. As BR approaches first, F3 suddenly stands right on the bag. BR deviates to the right to go around him and runs into / near the coach who pushes BR toward second. I'd probably ignore the pushing in this instance. But, that's not what happened in the original play.